Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Tramways Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Birmingham Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 26th July, and agreed to.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Lambeth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Lambeth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Shoreditch and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Shoreditch and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215 and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1921 under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1921)."—[Sir John Baird.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PARENTS PENSIONS (TRANSFER).

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, under Article 21 (1) (a) and Article 21 (1) (c) of the Royal Warrant, it has always been possible where a parent has been in receipt of a pension in consequence of the death of a son to have the pension transferred in the case of death of either parent to the surviving parent; whether it has now been decided that such transfer cannot be made; whether any Amendment to the Regulation or Royal Warrant has been made to this effect or is contemplated; and whether Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing the matter before this alteration becomes operative?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The Government decided, as my hon. Friend will remember, that while all existing pensions granted under the two paragraphs of the Article referred to should continue, all claims to pension
made, after due notice, on and after 1st April last should be dealt with on the basis of need under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Warrant. In a case such as my hon. Friend refers to, the surviving parent has the full right to claim and be awarded pension based on need, if such exists, and steps will be taken to see that no break occurs.

Mr. WHITE: Does it not say in the original Warrant that on the death of one parent payment may be transferred at once to the other. Is that altered, and have instructions been sent up to the pensions officers to this effect?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure. The fact now is that the two Subsections are sacrificed in order to bring the pensioner under Sub-section (b) instead of (1, a) and (1, c), and in most cases the pensioner is benefited.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these instructions have been sent out, and that no public notice has been given of this in any Amendment of the Warrant, and that I hold in my hand the instructions sent out by the pensions officer?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the information.

TEMPORARY GRANTS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, notwithstanding the undertaking given in Parliament in 1916 that no temporary grant from a local fund should be taken into account in fixing a need pension, instructions have been issued by the Ministry whereby the aged mother of a deceased man who is receiving temporary help from a local voluntary fund is called upon to surrender part of her pension whilst in receipt of this voluntary gift; and, if so, will he take steps to cancel this order so that the undertaking given in 1916 shall be strictly observed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Occasional assistance of a purely temporary character is disregarded in the award of pension to dependants based on their need, but regular income, from whatever source derived, has always been taken into account. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind
in which a claim has been dealt with in a different manner from that indicated, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me so that inquiry may be made into it.

PRE-MARRIAGE DISABILITY.

Mr. THOMSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that the words "removal from duty" in the Royal Warrant are rightly interpreted when applied to the first time when a man was in hospital from a disability, although he subsequently returned to duty; and will he see that in future these words only apply to an effective, and not to a temporary, removal from duty?

Captain LOSEBY: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions if widows of deceased soldiers are being refused pensions on the grounds that they were married subsequent to confinement in hospital on account of the disability of a similar nature to that of which the soldier eventually died, even although the said soldier actually served in the Army after his marriage and was awarded a pension as a result of disability caused or aggravated by subsequent service?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, in its reference to removal from duty, was framed on the same lines as the corresponding article in the pre-War Warrants, with the object of giving compensation by way of pension to those widows only who had been married before their husbands sustained the injury or disease which ultimately led to their death. It is clearly not a reasonable liability for the State to be required to give compensation, in the event of death, where the man had married when he was manifestly not in a condition to undertake, with any security, the obligation of support involved by his marriage.
At the same time, it has been fully recognised that there are a few cases in which aggravation of the pre-marriage disability has been caused by subsequent service, the man having, in such cases, contracted his marriage when, to all appearances, he had recovered from the effects of the original disability. Cases of this class, in which it is clear that the man, after marriage, was returned either to general service or to service of such character as did not clearly indicate that he was permanently and seriously in a worse physical condition than before the
original disability was sustained, the Ministry are empowered to meet, and do meet, where aggravation by subsequent service is shown.

DISABILITY PENSION (JAMES MCFARLANE).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that James McFarlane, care of Reid, 31, White Street, Govan, Glasgow, had the degree of his disability assessed at 6 to 14 per cent. for more than a year; that he was awarded a final allowance of 7s. 6d. for 70 weeks; that on his appeal McFarlane was awarded a final gratuity of £10, from which was deducted the amount of £6 as payment already made under the previous award, leaving Only a cash balance of £4 to be handed to him; and that great dissatisfaction prevails among pensioners at the decisions of Appeal Boards, and that a general feeling exists that the lower awards are made as a deterrent to others; and whether, in view of this, he will give this case reconsideration?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This man appealed to a Medical Appeal Board against the assessment of his disablement, and, on that Board reporting that a lower assessment was appropriate, the award was correspondingly reduced in accordance with the accepted conditions of the appeal. The award has now been declared to be a final award, and the man has lodged an appeal to the Assessment Appeal Tribunal. As regards the last part of the question, I may inform the hon. Member that the result of all appeals to Medical Appeal Boards during the last six months shows that in over 31 per cent. of the cases the assessment was increased, and in 58 per cent. no change was made.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (THOMAS RYDING).

Mr. MACLEAN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Thomas Ryding, who served four years seventeen days in the War, has been refused treatment allowance by the medical referee; that the parish doctor and his own panel doctor examined him and both reported him as suffering from valvular disease of the heart and general debility; whether the medical referee, on examining him afterwards, marked him fit for work and to receive treatment from his panel doctor on the 15th June, 1922;
whether two days later his panel doctor examined him and confined him to bed suffering from valvular disease of the heart, and requiring special treatment at the hospital; whether on the same day he again applied for a medical referee and, though confined to bed, received a form stating that he had to attend at the Adelphi Hotel, Argyle Street; whether he is aware that the medical referee examined him at his house on 19th June and marked him fit for work and treatment by his panel doctor; whether his panel doctor examined him on 19th June and again marked him unable to work and recommended him to the parish authorities for special treatment in hospital; whether he is aware that application was made to the parochial authorities on 20th June, and the parish doctor, after examining him, also marked him unable to work suffering from valvular disease of the heart and requiring hospital treatment; whether Ryding sent a medical certificate to the local war pensions office and they refused to send a medical referee to see him on the 23rd June; whether this man was admitted to the parish hospital in Stobhill on the 26th June suffering from the disability for which he was discharged from the Army; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Minister is prepared to have an inquiry into this and similar eases in Glasgow that are being certified as fit for work and who are compelled to throw themselves on the Poor rates, either by treatment by the parish doctor or treatment at the parish hospital?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This man was instructed to attend at the Cardiac Clinic for examination on the 19th June. Information was, however, received on that day that he was confined to bed and, on a domiciliary visit being made on the following day, the man was found to be not at home. There was no later application for treatment, but on learning that the man was in Stabhill Hospital the Ministry had him examined there by a medical officer of the Department who found that he was not in need of any treatment for his service disability. I understand that he left this hospital of his own accord on the 8th July. I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement that men who are examined by medical officers of my Department in connection
with applications for treatment are certified as fit for work. That is directly contrary to official instructions which have been carefully observed in this case.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the statement correct that this man was out when the medical officer called? My information is that the man was in bed, and that he was examined by the medical officer, who marked him fit for work. Will the right hon. Gentleman cause further inquiries to be made into this case in order that the points which have not been answered may be cleared up, and we may know whether or not the statements are correct?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I thought that I had answered my hon. Friend. I am quite prepared to inquire further.

LONSDALE HOUSE, CLAPHAM.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to close the Lonsdale House, Poynders Road, Clapham; whether he is aware that this home provides for the care of 32 permanently paralysed soldiers incurably paralysed by wounds received in the Great War who have lived together in this house for nearly four years; that the lease of the house has been given free of charge for 14 years, and all rates and taxes guaranteed by voluntary subscription; whether it is now proposed to break up this community and scatter the paralysed patients among various wards of different hospitals and homes; if so, whether on grounds of humanity and in response to the unanimous wishes of the patients, he will reconsider such a decision, if any; and whether, before any action is taken, he will receive a deputation of Members of Parliament and others interested in maintaining the continued existence of this home?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this hospital is not being closed. Arrangements are being made under which my Department will have the use of it on a capitation basis. Perhaps I may be permitted to express my sincere appreciation of the generous and helpful attitude taken by those interested in this home.

WIDOWS (TIME LIMIT).

Mr. MALONE: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that
cases of hardship resulting from the time limit prescribed in Article 11 of the Royal Warrant are now beginning to arise, inasmuch as widows are now being refused pension because their husbands died more than seven years after discharge, although death was directly attributable to the wound, injury, or disease admitted as due to service; and whether he will amend the Royal Warrant by extending the period of eligibility so as to prevent such cases of hardship arising?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am giving this matter my personal consideration, but, as at present advised, I do not see my way to recommend the removal of the time limit from Article 11 of the Royal Warrant.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PENSION ISSUE OFFICE, ACTON.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that employés at the new issue office at Acton are finding the greatest difficulty in obtaining living accommodation in the neighbourhood of their work; and whether he will consider what measures are possible to overcome this difficulty and recommend them to the proper quarter?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. But I am afraid that I cannot usefully add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 29th June.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these girls who live at far distances from Acton are put to immense expense during the year in fares, and cannot he do anything in the way of recommendation to any other Ministry to see that housing accommodation is supplied in one of the healthiest districts round London?

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is it not obvious that the girls will continue to live where their parents already live, and will not necessarily remove to Acton?

FOREIGN OFFICE (TEMPORARY STAFF).

Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALL: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been found possible
to dispense with the services of the extra 25 temporary higher division clerks and junior assistants, at a cost of £10,000, as recommended by the Geddes Report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The actual recommendation of the Committee was to the effect that, in view of the increase in the authorised staff of the Foreign Office, the continued employment of temporary higher division officers should not be necessary. This recommendation was based on a comparison between the present authorised establishment of 75 and an establishment of 43 "before the War." But the latter figure represents the staff before the South African War and not immediately before the War of 1914–18. Some confusion appears to have arisen between the two wars. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate the difficulty of carrying out a recommendation based on a comparison of this kind. The higher division staff just before the War of 1914–18 numbered 54. The present authorised staff, therefore, represents an increase of under 40 per cent., while the increase in the work of the Foreign Office since 1913, as indicated by the number of papers dealt with, is over 140 per cent. So long as the volume of work continues to be of this magnitude owing to the present activity and complication of international affairs, some temporary addition to the higher division staff will probably be necessary; but the possibility of effecting reductions will be kept in mind, and it is in fact anticipated that some diminution of the temporary staff may be possible during the current financial year.

IRISH OFFICE.

Captain W. BENN: 35.
asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the appointment of an additional Assistant Under-Secretary in the. Irish Office for the year 1922–23; is he directed by the Colonial Secretary or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; what is the reason for the additional staff at a cost of £14,500, and under whose control are they: does the Chief Secretary visit Ireland; and what staff in Ireland is under his control?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): A second Assistant Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was appointed in June, 1921,
and this is not, therefore, a new appointment for the current year. Of the two Assistant Under-Secretaries, one is in Dublin, and one is head of the Irish Office staff. As their title implies, both these officers are under the direction of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member, both of them also assist the Secretary of State for the Colonies in dealing with such Irish matters as are within his jurisdiction. The item £14,500 in the Irish Office Estimate is to cover the cost of any additional staff which it may be necessary to appoint during the financial year. And as regards the necessity for such additional staff I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 5th instant by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. It is anticipated that there will be a substantial saving on this item. The hon. and gallant Member will observe that the. Estimate provides for a decrease in the current financial year of no less than 60 per cent. in respect of salaries, etc., for the Chief Secretary's staff. The Chief Secretary does not now visit Ireland, but is quite ready to do so, if necessary. The staff under the Chief Secretary's control in Ireland consists of an Assistant Under-Secretary and a Principal Clerk, in addition to the staffs engaged in the administration of certain of the reserved services in Northern Ireland, and certain of the services in Southern Ireland which have not been transferred to the Provisional Government.

Captain BENN: Can the Chief Secretary give us any idea of when he himself is likely to be functus officio?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: At the earliest possible date, I hope.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on his visit to Ireland, organise some power of control over the Special Constabulary in Belfast?

Mr. MOLES: And also over the politicians.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Captain TERRELL: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether
his attention has been called to the statement of a high official of his Department, quoted in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, to the effect that the higher staff of his Department should be capable of reduction; and what effect is he giving to this expression of opinion?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset (Mr. Hurd) on the 10th July last, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Captain TERRELL: May I press my right hon. Friend for a reply to the last part of the question, "what effect is he giving to this expression of opinion"?

Mr. FISHER: It is obvious that the process of reduction must be gradual.

Captain TERRELL: What reductions have been made, may I ask?

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the Reports submitted on the general question of economy, has there been any general investigation into the various Departments and offices as to the possibility of reducing the higher staffs?

Mr. FISHER: I have made a close investigation into my Department and have come to the conclusion that reductions can be made, and they are being made. In the previous answer to which I referred the hon. Member I said that reductions had been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (BENEFIT FUND).

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the actuarial Report on the Constabulary Force Fund Benefit Branch, which was promised some time since, will be ready; and whether he will place a copy of the Report on the earliest possible occasion in the Library of the House?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to him on the 3rd instant by
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he was informed that this Report would not be completed for some considerable time. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to accelerate the publication of this actuarial Report, which was promised two months ago?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am doing my best.

ARMS (SOUTHERN IRELAND).

Sir W. DAVISON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is now in possession of the shot-guns and rifles which were taken charge of by the Royal Irish Constabulary in Southern Ireland; whether the British Government, who took the arms, are responsible for their return to their owners or, in the alternative, will compensate them for their loss; and who is the person to whom applications should be addressed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first part of the question, these arms are now in the custody of the military authorities. In reply to the second part, the question of the return of such arms to owners resident in Ireland or of compensation in the event of loss cannot be considered unless and until the Irish authorities remove the present embargo on the possession of arms by private persons. Applications for the return of arms to owners resident in England should be addressed to the War Office. I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject of compensation in the event of the loss of arms belonging to persons resident in England, and any communications on this subject should be addressed to the Irish Office.

Sir W. DAVISON: What are the authorities to whom he refers as having the custody of these arms?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Imperial military authorities.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are the arms now transferred to England, then, or where are they?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Some of them are in Northern Ireland, some in Southern Ireland, and some in Great Britain.

Sir W. DAVISON: My question refers to Southern Ireland, and as to whether those arms have been taken from Southern Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to these specific arms, they are under Imperial military custody in Southern Ireland, and some are in Great Britain.

Sir C. YATE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many guns and rifles, respectively, have been handed over by the British Government to the Free State Provisional Government in Ireland and what amount of ammunition; what is the limit of the number of men that may be enlisted by the Free State Government in Ireland under the terms of the Treaty; and whether that number has been exceeded under the present call to arms by the Free State Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave on the 13th instant to two questions addressed to me by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Weimer).

Viscount WOLMER: Has the limit of 30,000 rifles, which he then said had not been exceeded, still not been exceeded?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Still not been exceeded.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I did. I said the last time that under the Treaty an army of between 30,000 and 40,000 men might not be in excess of the provision which Ireland is entitled to make and that that had not yet been exceeded. At the same time, if special circumstances warranted the need of a larger force to suppress the present condition of disorder, the Government would feel themselves perfectly at liberty to consider that matter.

DEPORTATIONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.

Captain BENN: 50.
asked the Home Secretary under what statutory power he orders the deportation of Irishmen to Ireland, and directs that they shall reside within the area under the jurisdiction of
the Irish Provisional Government; and are such powers exercised in consultation with the Provisional Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, and the Regulations made thereunder, give power to issue Orders to the effect indicated in the first part of the question. I have exercised that power in one recent case, and, as far as that case is concerned, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Captain BENN: Were the powers exercised in consultation with, and with the assent of, the Provisional Government?

Mr. SHORTT: I have answered that question by saying that they were not in that particular case.

RESTORATION OF ORDER ACT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act is still being carried out; and whether it is being used to deport Irishmen from Great Britain?

Mr. SHORTT: I have recently made an Order under the Act named and the Regulations thereunder requiring an Irishman who was in England to proceed to Ireland for the purpose of residing there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this Act automatically come to an end when the Constitution is ratified?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any undertaking that he will not act under this Act without consulting the Provisional Government?

Mr. SHORTT: No, I cannot give any such undertaking.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the Act intended to apply to anyone in this country, and is it to be left on the Statute Book indefinitely and used against Englishmen?

MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
he has any information with regard to the appointment of investigators to carry on the work of Lord Shaw's Commission during the suspension of its sittings; and, having regard to the fact that these investigators will be granted full powers to arrive at a settlement with those who hold decrees granted in the Irish County courts, will he say if the second interim Report of the Commission on the work it has been able to do will be published for the guidance of those who hold decrees and will now be called on to settle their claims with the investigators?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The sittings of the Commission have not been suspended, but are being carried on during Lord Shaw's absence by the two other Members of the Commission, who have full power to act and to make decisions. The investigators referred to, of whom five have already been appointed, are not empowered to effect settlements with claimants or to limit the discretion of the Commission by making decisions. Their functions are merely to investigate and to report to the Commission, who hold themselves free to accept, reject, or modify their recommendations. The reasons suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for the publication of the Commission's reports do not therefore exist, and on this point I have nothing to add to the reply which gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th inst.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last answer he gave me was that he asked me to put this question down again, and may I further ask who is appointing these investigators? Is it the members of the Commission, the Provisional Government, or the British Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commission themselves are appointing the investigators. With regard to the last answer that I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, my memory is clear that it was quite a lengthy answer, and I pointed out to him that the Commission had the power to continue their sittings and to act.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Commission is going to be abolished?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No truth whatever.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is it not possible to revert to the ordinary courts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would certainly not be possible to revert to the ordinary courts in the existing circumstances. If we wish to get the matter settled within a reasonable period, reversion to the ordinary courts will be absolutely out of the question.

Mr. J. JONES: Will ordinary workmen, hundreds of whom have lost employment in consequence of disturbances in Southern Ireland, receive compensation as a consequence of the report of this Commission?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Colonel NEWMAN: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the names and residences of the 10 holders of decrees for damage in respect of property whose cases Lord Shaw's Commission war; able to examine before the suspension of its sittings, together with the amounts for damage in each case as awarded by the Irish courts and the amounts as re-awarded by the Commission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply on the subject of the publication of the Commission's Reports which I gave him on the 20th instant. It is not proposed to publish details of the Commission's findings in the thousands of cases which will come before them, and I see no ground of public interest, unless the House specially desires it, for singling out the first 10 cases for publication.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Shaw himself said that on those 10 findings the great mass of the other findings would be based?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, but merely to publish the names of the 10 persons in regard to whom these findings have been made would not be helpful, without publishing all the details of the cases.

Colonel NEWMAN: I asked in my question whether that could not be done.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I say that I am advised that there is no special reason
for singling out these 10 particular cases and that it would be objectionable to the parties themselves, in all probability. At the same time, if there is a general wish on the part of the House that the labour and expense of printing should be undertaken and an invidious selection made—if I receive evidence of that desire, I shall be glad to consider it.

Colonel NEWMAN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the 10 standard cases of decrees for malicious injuries to property adjudicated on by Lord Shaw's Commission, there has been inserted, in the case of a private residence, any conditions that the reduced sum as awarded shall be applied to the rebuilding and re-equipping of the property destroyed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative, nor should the hon. and gallant Member assume that every award made by the Commission is less than the amount previously awarded by the Courts.

FATALITIES, CUSHENDALL (INQUIRY).

Mr. DEVLIN: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which three young men, John Gore, James McAllister, and John Hill, were killed in Cushendall, County Antrim, on the night of Friday, 23rd June last, by members of the Ulster special police, who arrived in the village with British soldiers in motor lorries and Crossley cars; whether he is aware that the Northern Government has issued an official statement to the effect that these men were killed in an attempt to ambush a party of specials; that overwhelming testimony is forthcoming from eyewitnesses that there was no ambush or attempted ambush on the occasion; that the killing was deliberate and unprovoked; that on arrival in Cushendall the specials opened fire on the people who were standing in the streets, and when these scattered and fled to shelter, the specials entered houses where John Gore and John Hill were, and, after asking these men what religion they were, shot them on learning they were Catholics; and that the specials had arrested James McAllister when he was cycling along the country road to his home in Glenariffe, and brought him in a motor
to Cushendall, where they shot him dead under revolting circumstances; and whether, in view of these facts, he will appoint an impartial commission to inquire into the matter, or, otherwise, send an independent representative to investigate the facts on the spot and report to the Imperial Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Government have decided to institute an inquiry into this case, and Sir James Craig, while not desiring himself to initiate the inquiry, has intimated his willingness to give all possible facilities. Pending this inquiry, I am unwilling to accept or discuss the allegations made in the question.

Mr. DEVLIN: What form will this inquiry take?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not actually settled the composition and the method of the inquiry, but if a further question is put down in a day or two, I can give an answer.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also order an inquiry into the murders of British soldiers and police in Southern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

NAVAL OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if any naval officers have been seconded to the Air Force during the last 12 months for training as pilots; and whether any difficulty has been experienced in getting naval officers for flying training?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): Seven naval officers were seconded to the Royal Air Force in 1920, since which date no others have been seconded, in spite of the earnest desire of the Air Ministry to secure volunteers.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in using the expression "seconded"? Is he aware that the Navy have no power to second officers, and is he aware that the officers themselves have a great disinclination to serve in another Service at a critical time of their career?

Captain GUEST: I am giving an answer to a question put by another hon. and gallant Friend.

Viscount CURZON: I put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he correct in saying that these officers were "seconded'? Would it not be correct to say that the officers volunteered, and were not seconded?

Captain GUEST: In my reply I used both terms, "seconded" and "volunteered."

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: In view of the importance attached to this matter by the Admiralty, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a certificate of aviation has been made one of the qualifications for promotion in the Navy?

SUPER FLYING BOAT.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the Secretary for State for Air whether the Air Ministry have under construction a super flying boat; whether he can give any details with reference to it; and, under present conditions, will the Admiralty or the Air Ministry provide the crew for this craft?

Captain GUEST: I assume that my Noble and gallant. Friend has in mind the recent statements in the. Press to the effect that a large flying boat is being constructed for the Air Ministry by the Supermarine Aviation Company at their Woolston Works. The position is that this firm has in hand an order for a large flying boat hull, but I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to give any information as to its details. The crew will be supplied by the Air Ministry.

MARINE CRAFT.

Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of marine craft maintained by the Air Ministry; where are they built and where are they repaired; how many men are required to man them; and where do they obtain their nautical knowledge?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first, question is that. the establishment of marine craft maintained in use in connection with the operation and salving of aircraft is as follows:


Power-driven craft
35


Pulling boats
21


Barges, etc.
3


There is also a surplus of War stocks of marine craft which is held as a reserve
and for replacement. These craft were, for the most part, taken over by the Admiralty on the formation of the Air Force in 1918; to the second, that the information as regards building is not in all cases available, but the craft have mainly been built by Messrs. Thornycroft, Messrs. Cox and King, and Messrs. Gibbs. The repairs are carried out by direct contract; to the third, that the answer is 127; to the last, that training is for the most part carried out in the Royal Air Force units to which the boats belong and also at a small marine training establishment at Calshot.

Viscount CURZON: Do the figures just given include any craft which are maintained on the Tigris?

Captain GUEST: I think not. I will look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Is it a fact that the Navy has not enough room on its carriers for the number of machines already supplied to it by the Air Ministry?

Captain GUEST: I am afraid that I could not give the answer to that question.

Mr. ROSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the details which he has given as consistent with the public interest? Is it right that these things should be made public and copied into the stunt Press for some purpose, we know not what?

RESERVE.

Viscount CURZON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any details as to the new Air Force Reserve; whether it is intended to provide out of this Reserve for the requirements of the Navy; whether any of the pilots provided under this scheme would be able to fly on and off an aircraft carrier or off a flying platform; if not, how long would be required to train them and how many carriers would be required for the purpose; whether observers are included; how long would be required, to train them for their duties; and whether it is considered that the annual training provided for under the scheme is sufficient to train pilots and observers to carry out their duties in the squadrons of the Royal Air Force attached to the Royal Navy?

Captain GUEST: I am glad of this opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which has arisen. The statements which have appeared in the Press recently to the effect that a new Air Force Reserve was being created are not quite accurate. The position is that officers who were granted short service commissions in 1919 for a period of three years' service on the active list, followed by a period in the Reserve, will commence to pass into the Reserve this year. The first officers will be transferred in September. The Reserve is intended to provide for the requirements of the Air Force at a time of national emergency, including the duties of the Air Force in connection with the Royal Navy. A number of the pilots who are at present serving on short service commissions, and who will in due course pass into the Reserve, are fully trained and experienced in naval work. The Reserve also includes observers. It is considered that the annual training provided for under the scheme will be sufficient to keep pilots and observers in training to carry out any Air Force duties which they may be called upon to perform, including duties in the squadrons of the Royal Air Force attached to the Royal Navy.

Viscount CURZON: What is the proposed period of training, and what will the training be for the officers employed on these duties?

Captain GUEST: I take it that a study of the Regulations governing the training would supply the information.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman correct me if I suggest that it is 12 months?

Mr. ROSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that any information which he does not like to give across the Floor of the House of Commons shall be sent to Shoe Lane, to the "Daily Express"?

Captain GUEST: I cannot carry in my mind the figures which the hon. Gentleman desires, but it is a reasonable course.

AEROPLANES AND ENGINES (ORDERS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that the House is to adjourn for three months, he can state if his Department will have the necessary funds to enable it to give orders to aeroplane and engine mauu-
facturers, and so enable those selected to keep their works going and their staffs together during the period until the House meets again?

Captain GUEST: I fear I am not yet in a position to make any statement such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, nor can I promise to make an announcement on this subject before the House rises. The possibility of giving further orders to the aircraft industry beyond those already budgeted depends upon the decisions of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the necessity for doing something in this matter? Is he in a position, the money having been already voted, to do something before the House rises?

AIR DEFENCE.

Mr. MALONE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether representations have recently been made to him concerning the state of the Air Force and of civil aviation; and what action His Majesty's Government intends to take?

Major-General SEELY: 40.
asked the Prime Minister what decision the Government has made with regard to air defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of Question 39 is in the affirmative. The whole subject is now being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, but no decision has yet been taken.

Mr. MALONE: Are we to have any statement before the House rises? Shall I put down a question in the meantime?

Major-General SEELY: I understood from the Prime Minister, in answer to previous questions, that a decision would certainly be come to before the end of this month. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that, on this matter, which has now been so long delayed, he will be able to give a decision definitely, in the course of the next day or two?

The PRIME MINISTER: I need not impress on my right hon. Friend how very important is the decision which has to be taken, or how controversial is the problem. There is not complete agree-
ment among those who are in favour of increasing the efficiency and strength of the force. There have been various suggestions, and it was only on last Friday we were able to arrange to hear those rival views. They have to be very carefully considered, and we have to take into account the whole of the suggestions put before us. It would be very rash of me to endeavour to fix the date of coming to a decision, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are fully alive to the gravity of the problem. We are considering it very carefully, and are having regard to the importance of the, subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the possibility of the question of air disarmament arising in discussions on reparation and debts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the event of the right hon. Gentleman not being able to announce a decision before the House rises, and if the Committee of the Cabinet does then arrive at a decision, can that decision be enforced without waiting for the reassembling of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. MALONE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can make a statement as to the proposed constitution of the Territorial Air Force; and what will be the cost?

Captain GUEST: The constitution of the auxiliary or Teritorial Air Force will in general be similar co that of the Territorial Army, except in so far as differences in regard to service, training and material in the two arms make a divergence necessary. As stated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for East Lewisham, on 10th July, it is uncertain when the Bill for the Auxiliary Air Force can be proceeded with, the whole question of home defence, with which this is bound up, being under consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The cost will depend on the size of any such force it is decided to raise.

Mr. MALONE: Is it proposed to take the cost out of the battleships which are now being built?

FRANCO-SPANISH COMMERCIAL TREATY.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the commercial convention which has recently been concluded between France and Spain; whether this convention confers preferential rights over or prejudicial to British trade interests; and, if so, in what respects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am happy to be able to assure the hon. Member that British imports to Spain are enjoying and will continue to enjoy all reductions conceded to French goods by the recently concluded Franco-Spanish commercial treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MARTIAL LAW.

Mr. SWAN: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present martial law in Egypt is under the Proclamation of the 2nd November, 1914; and whether there is any precedent for the maintenance of martial law by one independent state in the territory of another when the two are at war?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. SWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Is it compatible with Section 11 of the Proclamation and Section 10?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If my hon. Friend wishes to ask about actual incidents, perhaps he will put down a question.

Mr. SWAN: I was invited to put down this question last week, and now it is put aside and I am asked to put down another question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary has answered both parts of the question.

Mr. SWAN: My object was to elicit information. It is not given and it is put aside again.

Mr. SWAN: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what Section of the Declaration to Egypt of 21st February, 1922, the answer to the
question of whether it is His Majesty's Government or the Egyptian Government which is responsible for the continuance of martial law can be found?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will read the relevant Section, which constitutes the second of the three principles laid down in the Declaration of His Majesty's Government to Egypt—
So soon as the Government of His Highness shall pass an Act of Indemnity with application to all inhabitants of Egypt, martial law as proclaimed on the 2nd November, 1914, shall be withdrawn.

Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that it is impossible to have the indemnity until there has been an election, so that the Parliament may decide it? Was it not presumed, when the Proclamation was issued, that martial law would be raised, and how can it he raised unless there is an election?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sorry that I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend's thirst for information. I have given him all the facts for which he asked.

ARRESTS.

Mr. LUNN: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a number of members of the Wafd (Egyptian delegation) have been recently arrested; whether this arrest was made under British martial law; what are the offences for which the arrest was made; and whether, in view of Lord Allenby's promise to the King of Egypt to suspend the application of martial law so far as it affects the free exercise of the political rights of Egyptians, he will take steps to secure their release?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The persons alluded to were arrested for appending their signatures to a manifesto which Lord Allenby described as a direct incitement to violence which cannot be tolerated. The promise mentioned in the last part of the question only referred, as was explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on 27th March, to the holding of elections in Egypt and does not, therefore, arise in this connection.

Mr. LUNN: Is it not a fact that the document which they issued and for which they have been arrested, consisted of a
question put in this House by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) and the answer given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I cannot accept that description of the document.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that this document contains direct incitements to anarchy, murder, and even other crimes?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Lord Allenby described it as a "direct incitement to violence."

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKISH REPARATION.

Colonel GRETTON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any progress has been made in the settlement of claims for reparation made by British subjects against the Turkish Government on account of damage done and property confiscated or requisitioned by the Turkish Government during the late War?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The competent Departments of His Majesty's Government are considering this matter sympathetically, and a Royal Commission has recently been set up to secure that such action as may be possible is taken without any avoidable delay in respect of the claims of really necessitous British subjects who have suffered damage and loss through enemy action in various countries. Claims of British residents in Turkey are filed with the Reparation Commission and are being dealt with as quickly as circumstances permit, but it is clearly impossible to accord them preferential treatment over those of British subjects in other countries. It must, moreover, be borne in mind that the funds available for the settlement even of the most urgent claims are extremely limited.

Colonel GRETTON: Do I understand that nothing has been done and no claims have been paid?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not sure whether any claims have been paid.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any property of Turkish nationals in this country
which would be available for the payment of these claims, and, if not, would the British Government make some advance in cases of great distress?

Mr. HARMSWOPTH: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Department concerned.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the subject of German reparation and the heavy fall in the German exchange; and when the next meeting of the Supreme Council will take place and where?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31 and 32.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the French Government are seeking to obtain the agreement of His Majesty's Government to proposals that we should cancel the debt owed by France to Great Britain; that the restoration of the devastated areas should be a prior charge on reparations instead of the costs of the Army of Occupation coming first, and that a loan should be made to Germany of which some proportion, even a half, should go to France for this prior charge; have any such proposals been entertained by His Majesty's Government;
(2) whether he will see that any question of the cancellation of the French debt is made dependent on the cancellation of armaments, particularly of all aeroplanes and submarines, weapons of offence which might be used against this country and involve us in heavy expense to counter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I understand that the question of reparation and that of inter-Allied debts is to he raised on the Appropriation Bill next week, when the Government will make a statement in reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have a reply to the last part of my question, as to the next meeting of the Supreme Council, particularly in regard to M. Poincaré's visit. Is he coming here, and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: A difficulty has arisen in consequence of the ministerial crisis in Italy. Otherwise M. Poincare would be here next week. I cannot say when that crisis will he solved. The date will depend entirely on that fact.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When this question comes up next week, will the Prime Minister open the Debate with a statement dealing with these various points? Has the Prime Minister considered or received from the French Government any suggestions such as are mentioned in the first of my questions?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is just asking what I would rather defer answering until the discussion takes place. It is very difficult by question and answer to make a full, clear and satisfactory statement, especially when you are dealing with matters which affect foreign countries, and which are, therefore, capable of misinterpretation unless you explain them very fully. Therefore, I would rather not make a statement until then. With regard to the first question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I prefer taking part in the Debate after hearing what is said by all sections of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is almost impossible to debate questions unless we know what negotiations have gone on and what the attitude of the Government is towards the negotiations. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, usually, when we have a Debate of this character we have some Papers before us showing what has taken place? Unless we can get answers to such questions as are on the Paper to-day it is impossible to conduct an intelligent Debate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the country is looking for some authoritative statement, and is not interested in a debating match?

Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the Foreign Office for the issue of Papers, as they have been issued in the past, in connection with these matters, and then we may know what is going on?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not know what are the Papers which would be of the slightest use for the Debate. Whatever documents there may be are supplemented so much by interviews—the Reparation Commission and so forth—that I do not think they would be very useful.

UNEMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT MEASURES).

Captain BENN: 25.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Cabinet are taking to consider the question of employment during the winter months?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed the hon. Members for Newcastle East and Westhoughton on the 10th July, a Cabinet Committee has the whole question of unemployment during the coming winter under consideration, and is expected to report at an early date. A Cabinet Committee has also been appointed to review the whole position of trade and employment. Meantime steps have been taken to circularise local authorities with a view to the submission of schemes of public work, which might be undertaken during the autumn and winter with Government assistance, should circumstances then appear to justify such schemes being put into operation. In addition it may be mentioned that many of the schemes, for which grants have been sanctioned, will be in operation during the period in question, while the maximum sums which may be guaranteed under the Export Credits and Trade Facilities Acts Schemes have not yet been reached. As regards the provision of relief generally, the hon. and gallant Member will be aware of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, modifications of which have been made from time to time to meet changes in the situation as far as possible.

Captain BENN: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Measures which he contemplates will be sufficient to deal with any emergency?

The PRIME MINISTER: I sincerely hope so. It is a very grave demand on the public purse, but we are doing our best to meet the situation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficult financial position of the local authorities, on whom the chief charge for maintaining the unemployed rests under these schemes?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully alive to the grave position of affairs in some areas, but it is not accurate to say that the main burden falls upon the local authorities. It is quite the reverse.

Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause further consideration to be given to the question of foreshore reclamation on the Wash?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And on the Humber.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking from recollection and without notice, but I rather think that there is a sum set aside for the purpose of reclamation under the Government schemes.

Mr. ROYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private schemes of foreshore reclamation have been launched, and that there is no doubt about the schemes being perfectly economical and well worthy of consideration?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: As to unemployment insurance, the House is not expected to reassemble until 14th November, and does not the uncovenanted benefit under the latest Act cease to operate towards the end of October? Have the Government taken that fact into consideration in connection with their schemes to ameliorate the lot of the unemployed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not answer without notice a question of that kind, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

Mr. LUNN: May we expect the decision of the Cabinet in the matter before the House rises for the Adjournment?

Mr. J. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that a large number of banks are giving notice to local authorities that they cannot permit any further overdrafts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know that there are some areas which have been exceedingly hard pressed, and I have no doubt at all that, if they communicate with the Ministry of Health, some arrangements will be made.

Mr. J. JONES: They have done so, and the result has not veen very satisfactory.

HONOURS LIST.

Mr. BRIANT: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether, pending the issue of
the Report of the proposed Royal Corn-mission on the Distribution of Honours, there will be no further recommendations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the Royal Commission will have reported long before the next list is due.

Mr. BRIANT: In the event of the Committee not reporting soon, what will be done in the meantime?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will meet before then, and will be sitting for six weeks.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is at present in negotiation with the French Government for the conclusion of a commercial treaty; and, if so, whether this is likely to materialise at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. MURRAY: Yesterday the French Ambassador expressed his sympathy. In view of that fact, will the British Government approach the French Government in the matter?

Mr. MURRAY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the conclusion of a defensive alliance between Great Britain and France against any future German offensive is still under consideration; and what the position now is in regard to this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; but I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton East on 4th July.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that there will be no decision on this question until the House has met again and the matter has been put before the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that I can give that guarantee. Before any arrangement of this kind can be effected, it must be sanctioned by the House. What the policy of the Government is has been made quite clear from time to time.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Mr. PERCY: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the vote of the House upon the Canadian cattle embargo, the Government will take immediate steps to remove such embargo?

Mr. HURD: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance by this House of the Motion for the removal of the cattle embargo against Canada and in order to promote good feeling between ourselves and the Canadian people, he will intimate to the Canadian Prime Minister that His Majesty's Government desires to enter into personal conference with Canadian Ministers so as to devise arrangements regarding the cattle embargo and other outstanding commercial questions which will conduce to the best interests of both countries and encourage a spirit of mutual helpfulness; and whether he is aware that the Honourable Mr. Robb, Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, is now on his way to this country upon a Canadian official business visit?

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposed to take to put into effect the decision of the House on the removal of the cattle embargo?

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the Autumn Session to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle, and to carry out the expressed wish of the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government accept the decision taken by the House of Commons on Monday last as a Mandate to deal at the earliest possible convenience with the problem on the lines of the Resolution adopted by the House. His Majesty's Government, therefore, hope to take the decisions reached by this House and the House of Lords into consideration at a very early date, and to decide what action they require. Legislation would, of course, be required to give effect to the change of policy which the House approved.

Mr. PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman he able to make a definite statement as to the intentions of the Government before the House rises?

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Is it not desirable to enter into personal conference with Canadian Ministers, some of whom are coming over here?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the questions which we have under consideration. I think it is very probable that would be desirable. But that would make it difficult for me to make a statement for a few days.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Resolution of the House, and the view's expressed would he satisfied by the imposition of a quarantine, which would be equivalent to an embargo?

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain hon. Members here are openly stating, and it has also been stated in another place, that they will so manæuvre matters that no Bill will be introduced in this House this year?

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable to take into consideration the views of other Ministers of other Dominions in addition to Canada?

Mr. PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my supplementary question as to whether he can make a statement before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: if my hon. Friend will put down a question next week, I may then be in a better position to give an answer. Obviously, consultation is necessary. A Resolution of a different character has been adopted in another place and we have to take that into consideration, and there are other matters which will require to be taken into account.

Sir F. LOWE: In taking action on this matter of the embargo, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of imposing a quarantine?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to appoint a woman as delegate,
alternative delegate, or technical adviser to the Assembly of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government has decided to appoint my Noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to represent them at the next meeting of the League of Nations.
I am not yet in a position to make any announcement as to the third representative, but the suggestion in the question will be considered among others.

Viscountess ASTOR: Thank you.

RAILWAY FIRES BILL.

Captain TERRELL: 41.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the importance of the Measure to agricultural interests, he will afford the short time necessary for the further consideration of the Railway Fires Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. As I stated on Tuesday last, I regret that I cannot grant any facilities for the discussion of Private Bills duuring the remainder of this portion of the Session.

WAR INVENTIONS (MR. W. DE C. PRIDEAUX).

Major COLFOX: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the machine-gur belt invented by Mr. W. de C. Prideaux was almost exclusively used by our Air Force and that of our Allies in the Great War with complete satisfaction and the saving of many lives; that Mr. Prideaux made a claim against the American Government in May, 1918; that this claim was admitted, but, under the terms of the Bolling Agreement, became a liability on the British Government; that Mr. Prideaux has since 1918 made repeated attempts to get his case settled and the money paid which is due to him; that he sacrificed the whole of his professional practice and other resources to do this important work for his country and her Allies; and that his health has completely broken down; will he say when the case will be heard and disposed of by the Royal Commission on Inventions; and, seeing that it is not
disputed that a large sum is due to him, though the actual amount is not yet fixed, will he arrange to pay Mr. Prideaux some substantial sum pending a final settlement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The answer is a long one, and, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am informed that a machine-gun belt embodying certain improvements suggested or invented by Mr. Prideaux was used by the British Air Service and by the United States Air Service during the latter half of the War. No information is available as to its use by other Allied Services.

The date at which Mr. Prideaux presented his claim to the United States Government is not known, though it is known that such a claim was made and that the United States Government on the 5th August, 1920, offered Mr. Prideaux the sum of $15,000 in full settlement thereof. The offer was not accepted and negotiations were broken off by the United States Government on 24th June, 1921, that Government being then of opinion that the claim should be met by the British Government under the Bolling Agreement. The claim was afterwards presented to the British Government on 17th November, 1921, and arrangements are being made for a hearing of the claim before the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors and the Commission appointed by the American Government.

Mr. Prideaux offered his services to the War Office in 1915, and the invention was made while he was still employed by them. The whole of the expenses of developing and testing the invention was borne by the War Office and Mr. Prideaux was awarded a sum of £5,000 in respect of the user of his invention by the British Air Service, plus £1,600 in respect of personal expenses incurred by him. These sums were accepted by Mr. Prideaux in full settlement of his claim in respect of the British Government's user of his invention. He has, however, put forward a further claim in respect of such user and this claim will be heard by the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors.

I have no information with regard to the state of his health.

The procedure to be adopted for dealing with claims under the Bolling Agreement has involved prolonged discussion with the United States Government, but it is hoped that the arrangements now made will make it possible for Mr. Prideaux's claim to be heard and disposed of before the end of the year.

It is not possible for His Majesty's Government to act in anticipation of the decision of the Royal Commission, and I regret that I am unable to authorise any interim payment to Mr. Prideaux as suggested.

TRADE COMMISSIONERS AND CORRESPONDENTS.

Major GLYN: 45.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the list of His Majesty's trade commissioners and Imperial trade correspondents, as published in the Board of Trade Journal, may be revised in such a manner as to ensure, in so far as the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are concerned, that these duties are undertaken by specially qualified gentlemen who are not already engaged in official positions as civil servants of the local Governments, and who can render to the Department of Overseas Trade the fullest and most complete quarterly reports of all branches of trade, commerce, and industry of each of the Crown Colonies; and whether the Government and the Crown agents could devise some better and more efficient method of making known to the public the great prospects which are offered to emigrants and to traders in these territories?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that the adoption of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question would involve increased expenditure on a scale which is at the present time impracticable. Improvements are being effected in the annual reports rendered by Colonial and Protectorate Governments with a view to making them of greater use to traders. As regards openings for settlers in the Colonies and Protectorates, I understand that full information is given in the handbooks issued by the Overseas
Settlement Committee or can be obtained from the Committee's office.

WILD BIRDS' PROTECTION BILL.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Wild Birds' Protection Bill, which it was hoped would be introduced soon after Whitsuntide, will be introduced before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?

Mr. SHORTT: The consideration of this Bill by the Advisory Committee has taken longer than anticipated, and I am afraid the answer to the question is in the negative.

DEATHS (CORONERS' CERTIFICATES).

Colonel BURN: 49.
asked the Home Secretary whether there is any power to correct a register in which the cause of a woman's death is given by a coroner's court as due to hæmorrhage from a wound in the throat, murder, her husband being committed for trial on a charge of wilful murder by the local magistrate but acquitted at the Assizes, in view of the injury to an individual who has been proved innocent by the verdict of a jury?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): Under Section 36 (4) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, an error of fact or substance (other than an error relating to the cause of death) in the information given by the coroner's certificate concerning a dead body upon which an inquest has been held, may be corrected by the registrar on receipt of a certificate from the coroner that such error exists.

Colonel BURN: Has not the time arrived for the Government to take some steps to define accurately what the duties of a coroner's court are, especially where a criminal charge is likely to be made and the finding in his court may possibly come into conflict with the administration of the law in His Majesty's courts?

Sir A. MOND: If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me what duties he refers to, I will consider the matter.

Mr. J. JONES: Why is this question, which was put down to the Home Secretary, answered by the Minister of Health?

Sir A. MOND: Because this matter is in the purview of the Ministry of Health.

ST. JAMES'S PARK (TEMPORARY BUILDINGS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can give a date when the temporary buildings in St. James's Park will be demolished and the lake will be refilled?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The demolition of the buildings is practically complete, and experiments are being made to test the condition of the bed of the lake with a view to filling a portion of it as early as possible.

Sir W. DAVISON: How long are these experiments likely to take? There has been ample opportunity now for several years.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope they will be concluded very shortly.

Lieut. - Colonel JAMES: Will other buildings also be demolished at an early date?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down.

KENYA (NATIVE SOLDIERS' UNCLAIMED BALANCES).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been decided to submit to the Legislative Council of Kenya Colony an ordinance repealing the allocation of unclaimed balances of deceased native soldiers and to pay these balances to a native trust fund; whether he is aware that the proposed ordinance is being seriously criticised in the colony as a breach of faith likely to cause dissatisfaction amongst the natives and whether His Majesty's Government will consult the Chief Native Commissioner as to the advisability of postponing action for further consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In 1919 legislation was enacted in Kenya and Uganda providing, inter alia, that balances standing to the credit of native members of the East African Force should, if no valid
claim by the native or his personal representatives was made within three years, be applied to the benefit of the tribe to which that native had belonged. When this provision was brought to the notice of the Army Council, who were largely concerned, as the funds from which payment was due were largely Army funds, they were unable to agree to the arrangement, and it became necessary to direct the repeal of the provision, such unclaimed balances therefore falling to the credit of military funds. In consequence of protests received from the local authorities, and, in particular, from the ex-Director of Military Labour, now the Deputy Chief Native Commissioner. Kenya, the question was very fully discussed with the War Office and the Treasury. The discussion is not yet concluded.

MOTOR SPIRIT.

Major GLYN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of a gallon of refined motor spirit at the refineries in the United States of America in New York and in London to the consumer; what were the corresponding prices in 1914; what is the approximate rate of freight for the transport of the spirit across the Atlantic; and what prospect is there of the public requirements in petrol being available at prices which, whilst affording a rate of 10 per cent. interest to the oil companies, will help to lower prime mover costs in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: According to information which I have obtained from trade and other sources, the price at refineries in Philadelphia of motor spirit, of a grade distinctly inferior to No. 3 motor spirit, was, on 1st July this year, 22 cents per gallon. The price to consumers in New York was 26 cents per gallon. In July, 1914, the corresponding prices were 11 cents and 15 cents. These prices are for bulk supplies, and the standard gallon in the United States is five-sixths of a British Imperial gallon. The price in London for No. 3 motor spirit delivered in two-gallon tins at 2s. 3½d. per gallon on 1st July this year and 1s. 7d., inclusive of duty, in July, 1914. Most of the motor spirit imported into this country from the United States is carried in their own tank steamers by the
oil companies and I am unable to supply information as to the cost of transport. I am afraid I cannot venture a forecast of future supplies, prices and profits.

AIRCRAFT FACTORY, HEATON CHAPEL.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the price received for the Ministry of Munitions aircraft, factory, Heaton Chapel, and the name of the purchaser?

Mr. YOUNG: This factory was sold to the Crossley Motors, Limited, under an option and at a price which was fixed at the time the factory was erected for Government work by that company. In view of the circumstance that there are similar properties for disposal elsewhere, it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LAND COURT (REPORT).

Major M. WOOD: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Scottish Land Court for 1921 will be published?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The publication of the Report awaits the final proof of the appendices, which is expected to be ready in about a month's time.

Major WOOD: Why has it been so late this year?

Mr. MUNRO: The reason, I understand, is that there have been communications between the Land Courts and the Stationery Office in regard to the form of the Report.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Major WOOD: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many applicants for holdings settled by the Board of Agriculture since 1st January, 1919, were given only yearly tenancies; how many of these yearly tenants have since been given the tenure of landholders under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; and how many have given up their holdings, or are under notice to quit, because
they declined, on being offered landholder's tenure, to take over the buildings at the Board's valuation?

Mr. MUNRO: The number of applicants for holdings settled by the Board since 1st January, 1919, who were given yearly tenancies is 182. Of these 93 have since been given landholder's tenure under the 1911 Act. Two have given up their holdings and none are under notice to quit because they declined on being offered landholder s tenure to take over the buildings at the Board's valuation.

Major WOOD: Are they under notice to quit for any other reason?

Mr. MUNRO: Not so far as I know.

GIRLS' SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHEERNESS.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education when it is proposed to proceed with the building of the secondary school for girls at Sheerness?

Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that it is impossible at present to state when present financial restrictions will permit of progress being made with the secondary school at Sheerness.

RUSSIA (BRITISH NATIONALS' CLAIMS AND TRADE).

Mr. WISE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether it is to be understood from the declarations made On behalf of the Government in the Debate yesterday that if the Russian Government returns an unconditional affirmative to the questions put by M. Litvinoff the Government will be prepared to assist British property owners and others in their negotiations with the Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. If the Russian Government announces plainly its intention to pursue the policy foreshadowed by the Russian Delegation at The Hague, the British Government would certainly do all in their power to assist their nationals to enter into negotiations with the Russian Government and to carry such negotiations to a successful Conclusion. The extension to Russian
trade of facilities under my scheme of export credit and trade facilities would follow in due course.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the assistance include the appointment of an Ambassador at Moscow?

Mr. CLYNES: In the event of the affirmative answer referred to in that reply, are we to understand that it will be followed by a further Conference to carry out the arrangements?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not so sure that that will be necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for a reply to my question?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY RATES.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the Ministry is formulating information to enable the Railway Rates Tribunal to efficiently carry out the requirements of the Railways Act, 1921, and, if so, of what character; and whether the statistical department of the Ministry will obtain the separate costs to the railway companies of station and service terminals, of cartage, of warehouses, of docks, harbours, hotels and other various facilities provided by railway companies, without which information it is impossible for the tribunal to accurately fix standard rates for conveyance upon the railway, which is the only monopoly service enjoyed by railway companies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): As the answer is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is tier answer:

In addition to the annual railway returns, which embrace both accounts and statistics, the Ministry of Transport issues a monthly volume of railway statistics, and has recently issued a volume giving the tonnage, gross receipts and receipts per ton per mile for a large number of selected commodities. Returns are also obtained relating to the cost of working at representative goods depots and marshalling yards, and to the cost of cartage at selected stations.

My hon. Friend will agree that all these returns will be of very material assistance to the Rates Tribunal, and if that tribunal requires additional information to facilitate its task, I shall endeavour to obtain and furnish it.

As regards docks, hotels and other ancillary businesses, I asked the railway companies, shortly after the passing of the Railways Act, 1921, to formulate proposals for a revised compilation of the statutory accounts which, among other things, would result in a more accurate apportionment of the receipts and expenditure proper to such businesses.

LONDON UNDERGEOUND RAILWAYS (FARES).

Mr. GILBERT: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he can now announce the decision of his Department as regards an inquiry into the present fares of the Underground Tube Railways of London; and, if such an inquiry has been decided upon, can he state when it will take place and in what form it will be?

Mr. NEAL: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to ask the Rates Advisory Committee to advise the Minister, in pursuance of Section 6 of the London Electric Railways (Fares, etc.) Act, 1920, as to what, if any, modifications should, in the circumstances, be made in the fares now in operation and charged by all or any one or more of the companies under this Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business with which it is intended to conclude the sittings next week, and also how far it is intended to take the business to-night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will take tonight first. We hope to take the Report stage of Ways and Means (26th July), Post Office (Parcels) Bill, and Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill, and the Third Reading of this latter Bill; Expiring Laws Bill, Second Reading. It is important to get these Bills, for the first two, which originated here, have not yet been to another place, and, as time is getting on, they should get there as soon as possible.
To-morrow (Friday) we propose to take the Allotments Bill [Lords], Report
stage, then the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Bill. If any question arises on that Bill, I think it must be on the Committee stage, so I think we can dispose of the Second Reading to night. Then we shall also take the Education Scotland (Superannuation) Bill, Report stage; and, if there be time before 4 o'clock, other Orders on the Paper. In order, however, to make sure of getting the three Orders I have mentioned and to clear the Order Paper, I propose to move the suspension of the Four o'Clock Rule—that is, for these three Bills.
On Monday, the first Order will be the discussion on the Order to he made under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and after that, further stages of Bills on the Paper.
Tuesday, the first business will be the Motion to be proposed with regard to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley): then further stages of Bills and Lords Amendments.
Wednesday and Thursday, Appropriation Bill; Second and Third Readings.
Friday, Lords Amendments to Bills, and the Motion for the Adjournment.

Captain W. BENN: I wish to raise a point of Order. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a Resolution is to be moved by the Government on Monday in reference to the Safeguarding of industries Act under an Order made under Part II of that Act. I observe that that Motion appears for the first time on the Paper to-day, and there also appears on the same Paper an Amendment to that Motion standing in the names of three hon. Members of this House. What I wish to ask is how it came about that an Amendment got on the Paper before the publication of the Motion to hon. Members? Are we entitled to go to the Table of the House, and inspect Motions which are put down. I should also like to know whether that Amendment will receive precedence over any other Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: Any hon. Member is entitled to inquire at the Table whether a Motion has been handed in, and to put down Amendments to it. When the matter comes up for discussion the Chair is entirely free to call upon any Amendment not necessarily those which were handed in first.

Mr. SPENCER: Are we to understand that we are entitled to a reply if such a question is put?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

THOMAS ISAAC MARDY JONES, Esquire, for County of Glamorgan (Pontypridd Division).

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

LEGITIMATION BILL,

"to provide for the legitimation of illegitimate persons by the subsequent marriage of their parents," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Sir Leslie Scott and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Grangemouth Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill [Lords],

Oil in Navigable Waters Bill [Lords],

Ayr Burgh (Electricity) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

Resolutions [26th July] reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £188,643, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."

CLASS V.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £751,943, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, including certain special Grants."

CLASS I.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,953,624, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, col. 592.]

CLASS II.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,730,009, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 595, 6 and 7.]

CLASS III.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,825,152, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 599–602.]

CLASS IV.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,545,207, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 603–4.]

CLASS V.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,298,596, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Mardi, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 607–8.]

CLASS VI.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £71,194,498, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 611–12.]

CLASS VII.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,831,796, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922. col. 612.]

ROAD GRANTS (UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF).

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,040,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Road Grants to relieve Unemployment."

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in the United Kingdom for assistance in carrying out approved Schemes of useful work to relieve Unemployment."

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £900,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Relief arising out of Unemployment."

EXPORT CREDITS.

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to provide for Advances in respect of Exports of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom or guarantees in connection therewith."

PROPERTY LOSSES (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,010, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for ex gratia Grants in respect of Losses and Injuries sustained in the Rebellion in Ireland in 1916."

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Compensation for Criminal Injuries and Medical and Nursing Expenses of Crown Employés who have been maliciously injured."

NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT-IN-AID.

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,750,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £2,750,000), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland."

DISPOSAL AND LIQUIDATION COMMISSION.

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission."

SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.

18. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,085,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."

RAILWAY AND CANAL (WAR) AGREEMENTS LIQUIDATION.

19. "That a sum, not exceeding £31,485,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government control of Railways and Canals in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Section 16, and Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 9 H, and payments to Railway Companies under the Railways Act, 1921, Section 11, and the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921, Section 1."

TREASURY SECURITIES DEPOSIT SCHEME.

20. "That a sum, not exceeding £600, be he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Expenses connected with the Treasury Securities Deposit Scheme."

COAL MINES DEFICIENCY.

21, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000.000, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to provide for the Deficiency arising under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and for Payments under Section 7 (5) of the Coal Mines Emergency Act, 1920."

PRIZE CLAIMS.

22. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Claims in respect of Ships or Cargoes condemned or detained as Naval Prize."

COAL MINING INDUSTRY SUBVENTION.

23. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, as a Subvention-in-Aid of Wages in the Coal Mining Industry."

GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.

24. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Grants in respect of Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action."

REFUGEES (IRELAND) GRANTS.

25. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
March, 1923, for grants to refugees from Ireland for the relief of distress."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23

26. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,674,781, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments."

[For Services included herein, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, col. 628.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

27. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,102,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services."

[For Services included herein, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols, 629–30.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

28. "That a sum, not exceeding £34,300,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges for Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in respect of an estimated net total cost of £63,875,500, and of liabilities outstanding on the first day of the year."

AIR ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

29. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,463,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Force Services."

[For Services included herein, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1922, cols. 635–6.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out "£188,643," and to insert instead thereof "£188,543."
I desire to call attention to the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the recommendation of the Geddes Report for the abolition of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. With the permission of the House I will endeavour to put my case as lucidly and as clearly and, I hope, as briefly as possible. The important point to remember in discussing this question is that in connection with questions which have been put across the Floor of the House the point has been obscured that the appointment of the Civil Service Arbitration Board was anterior to that of the Whitley Councils in the Civil Service. Perhaps it will be as well if I make clear exactly what the
terms of reference were to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. The Conciliation and Arbitration Board was set up in 1917 to deal with claims by Government employés for increased remuneration arising from the increased cost of living due to war conditions. The terms of reference were as follow:
To deal by way of conciliation or abitration with questions arising with regard to claims for increased remuneration (whether permanent or temporary, owing to War conditions) made by classes of employés of Government Departments other than classes of employés who are engaged wholly or mainly by way of manual labour of a kind common to Government and other employment, and in respect of whom the Board are satisfied, on the certificate of the Government Department concerned, that adequate means for the settlement of such questions have already been provided, or that changes of remuneration always follow the decision of the recognised machinery applicable to the district generally.
That was an attempt to meet the difficulties that were arising in the Government Department where the employés were on fixed wages, and it concerned those more particularly who were on the low scales of pay, and who were feeling very badly the pinch caused by the increased cost of living. The membership and procedure of that Arbitration Board was laid down as follows:
Any claim which may fall within the terms of reference shall he heard before the Board acting as a triplicate chairman, together with not more than three official representatives, and not more than three representatives of the class of employés concerned or their associations, where such association exists. The official representative shall be appointed in cases where employés of only one Government Department are concerned—two by that Department and one by the Treasury. In other eases they shall all be appointed by the Treasury. In the first instance, the official representatives and the employés' representatives shall endeavour to arrange the difference by mutual agreement, but should they fail to settle the matter by conciliation the case will be at once referred to the Board acting as arbitrators, who may call for further evidence if they desire, and give other directions as they may think necessary for the proper decision of the matters in dispute.
It will be remembered that the Whitley Committee, in its Report on conciliations and arbitration, recommended voluntary machinery for the adjustment of disputes should be set up—
when the parties are unable to adjust their differences, we think that there should be means by which an independent inquiry may be made into the facts and circum-
stances of a dispute, on an authoritative announcement made thereon. We further recommend that there should be established a Standing Arbitration Council for cases where the parties wish to refer any dispute to arbitration.
Therefore the Government have approved of arbitration and have done everything possible both to urge and bring pressure to bear upon Labour representatives and trade unionists to take their disputes to arbitration, and they have themselves set up the very elaborate machinery of the Industrial Courts for this purpose. Therefore we are simply asking that what they have accepted hitherto they shall apply in principle to their own Department and. maintain what they have impressed should be applied to all other industrial concerns outside. There was appointed a Provisional National Joint Committee consisting of 30 members, 15 official representatives and 15 representative of the Civil Service associations.
They were
to consider a Whitley scheme for the clerical and administrative branches of the Civil Service.
4.0 P.M.
On 28th May, 1919, the Committee issued its Report, approving of the adoption of the Whitley principle in the Civil Service, and it is interesting to note that the adoption of the Report was moved by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Chamberlain), at a mass meeting, held in Caxton Hall, on 3rd July, 1919. It would be well that we should have some idea of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in moving that Resolution. It was an eloquent and enlightened speech. It accepted generally all that had been laid down, and was certainly in keeping with the spirit of regeneration, as one thought, that had come upon the Government. They were then inclined to look on these things in a broader and more generous spirit. In the course of his speech, the Lord Privy Seal said:
You know I desire as strongly as anybody that the relations between the Government and its employés should be friendly and contented relations, and that the Service should not only do its best, but feel that it is made easy to do its best, by the appreciation shown by those who represent the State, the conditions under which they work, and the conditions under which they live. I ant very glad, therefore, to have such an organisation as this, but I am bound to add that the scheme is not in all
respects what I should have desired. It contains provisions which, frankly, I do not altogether like, and which I accepted with hesitation and reluctance; but I have accepted them, and, having accepted them. you may be sure that I mean to abide quite faithfully by them and work them loyally. I tell you this because I think it right you should know I consider there are features in this scheme which may give rise to grave trouble; but it will not give rise to trouble if they are worked in the same spirit in which the two sides who framed this Report met and conducted their deliberations. Everything depends upon the spirit in which we attend our future deliberations. If that spirit is right then the features of the scheme which I fear to be dangerous will not in practice result in damage to the public service. If the spirit is not right, neither this scheme nor any other scheme will work, and we shall have to abandon the steps we have taken and give up this great experiment. I am not a pessimist, however, and I believe that the scheme will work and that the proper spirit to work it will be forthcoming.
That was the very enlightened point of view which the present Lord Privy Seal took with regard to this matter. There has been no suggestion from his successor or any other occupant of the Treasury Bench that there has been any breakdown or any departure from that spirit in which it was originally entered. In all things, the people have endeavoured to work it out in the spirit in which it was first adumbrated. It is as well to remember that when the Whitley principle was accepted for the Civil Service, the Civil Service Arbitration Board had been in existence nearly two years. That is very important. The Report, of which the right hon. Gentleman moved the adoption at that crowded meeting of the Civil Service, in Clause 6 says:
For the purposes of this Report we have assumed that the Civil Service Arbitration Board will continue in being.
That is pretty definite. There could be no more specific utterance. Its very brevity and conciseness indicates that the Government, when they adopted the report, recognised that the Civil Service Arbitration Board was complementary to the Whitley principle and was necessary to give it full and proper effect. I do not want to give further long quotations unless I am challenged, but I may say that the facts are emphasised in Clauses 34, 35 and 36 under the headings "Separate bodies need not be set up to deal with questions of remuneration," "Agreement (Procedure)" and "Disagreement."
Clause 36 under the heading "Disagreement" lays down the machinery, and the particular machinery was that already set forth by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. That, too, was adopted in the constitution of the Post Office Whitley Council, and in Clause 21 there is a similar proviso. I hope that I shall not have to read all those quotations to satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they are actually in the constitution. The important point is that the Arbitration Board was set up prior to the Whitley Council, and that when the Whitley Council was brought into being it was recognised that the Civil Service Arbitration Board was to complete the structure, so that it would work efficiently and without any ill-will. It has also to be remembered that the personnel of the Board consisted of a representative of the employers, a representative of the employés, and an independent chairman, all of them appointed by the Government, and none of them civil servants. The employés had no voice in the matter, but the side which I represent were quite willing to accept the bona fides of the Government, to meet them whole-heartedly, and to abide loyally by the terms of the agreement. We are now simply asking that they shall abide by the contract and not endeavour to depart from it. The Board consisted of Sir William Collins, Sir Francis Gore-Brown, an eminent lawyer, Sir Charles A. Russell, Sir Alexander Kaye Butterworth, who, I believe, has something to do with railways, Sir Robert Turnbull, Mr. Harry Gosling, and Sir Guy Garnet, another railway director, so that it cannot be said that the bias was likely to be on the side of the persons taking their disputes to arbitration. But I want to say that all sides implicitly accepted that these gentlemen, no matter what their business or their views on life, would carry out their duties as arbitrators fairly. The present members are Sir Charles A. Russell, Sir Alexander Kaye Butterworth, and Mr. Harry Gosling, so that it cannot be said that Labour is by any means overweighted. It is as well to know that from 1st May, 1919, to 1st August, 1919, they issued 99 awards, and from August, 1919, to May, 1922, they issued 29 awards. It has to be remembered that these awards are spread over an enormous number of cases and different grades,
embracing in the aggregate about 300,000 employés. Then we had the Geddes Report, which, in Vol. 3, page 67, recommends the abolition of the Board. They pointed out that the total cost of the Arbitration Board was less than £4,000, and I hope that this will be borne in mind. They say:
The Board was set up in February, 1918, 'to deal, by way of conciliation and abitration, with questions arising with regard to claims for increased remuneration made by classes of employés, in Government Departments other than classes of employés who are engaged wholly or mainly by way of manual labour of a kind common to Government and other employment.' At present the Board is not empowered to entertain applications for permanent increases of salary from classes of officers with salaries of £500 or over.
They recommended that the Board should be abolished on 21st February, 1922, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Chairman, the vice-Chairman, and the secretaries of the National Whitley Councils that the Government had decided to abolish the Arbitration Board. This was the first ground of complaint. Till then the Government had honourably carried out the whole of their agreement with their servants, and there had been nothing to give anyone the idea that they were inclined to break faith. There had been no consultation with the staff, and they were taken entirely by surprise. In this House on 22nd February, 1922, in reply to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton), the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
His Majesty's Government have been considering the matter. The conditions which led to the establishment of the Civil Service Arbitration Board some five years ago have been entirely changed by the formation of Whitley Council for the discussion of questions affecting the remuneration and conditions of service of civil servants; and the Government have come to the conclusion that the continuance of the present arrangements for compulsory arbitration are inconsistent with, and to some extent militate against; the development of these councils on the best lines. They have accordingly decided that the time has now come for bringing the present arbitration arrangements to an end. They have decided also that under these altered conditions it would be desirable to strengthen the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service by the appointment of some Members of this House who would form part of the official side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1922; col. 1910, Vol. 150.]
The thing to note is that that would rather lead the House to believe that the Whitley Council had superseded the
Civil Service Arbitration Board instead of the constitution of the Whitley Council laying it down clearly and specifically that for the purpose of the Whitley Council it assumed that the Civil Service Arbitration Board would remain in being. One does not want to use harsh names, but it is difficult to find the name to put to that sort of treatment. It does not seem that there has been quite fair treatment accorded to the Civil Service in this respect. Since when have the Government altered their minds with regard to compulsory arbitration? They certainly have been trying to persuade other people to submit to it, but now, when it suits their point of view, for reasons rather difficult to fathom, they are prepared to abandon it for the Civil Service. Probably it is that at that particular time the Government were filled with gratitude to the workers, both in the Civil Service and outside, and appreciated the great services that they had rendered. Perhaps they were also apprehensive of the state of affairs in the labour and industrial markets, and therefore made advances and concessions from which ever since they have seemed to endeavour to find ways and means of departing. I cannot find any other reason. I hope I am wrong, but that certainly seems the position. It has also to be noted that the Whitley Council was further weighted against the employés by Members from this House who were to be called exclusively from the Government side. That fact ought to be borne in mind. You could not have a Member from the Liberal or Labour party. They were all to be exclusively from the Government side. I suggest that it is not calculated to give confidence in a body so composed, especially having regard to the fact that the Civil Service Arbitration Board has been already abolished.
It will also be within the knowledge of Members of the House that on the 15th May of this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. The deputation was unsuccessful. There was a meeting of Members of this House called in one of the rooms upstairs, and, as Chairman of that meeting, I was commissioned to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would kindly communicate to Members of this House a memorandum as to what
transpired at that particular interview. He refused to do it. Why should there be any refusal? Their idea was to arrive at the facts of the case. They wanted to see the arguments put forward by the deputation, and to see the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to them, in order that they might be in a position to arrive at a fair and considered judgment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer withheld that from the House, and one could only assume that it was done in order that, when the matter was raised in the House, Members would come here not fully informed, and not in a position to judge the case wholly and impartially as they would like to do. On the 24th May of this year the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) said:
Provisions for contribution by consent of both parties is already made by the Industrial Court Act, 1919, which applies to civilian employés of the Crown; and it is not considered that further provision is either necessary or desirahle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1922; col. 1237, Vol. 154.]
On the 15th June last the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, with reference to the paragraphs of the Report of the National Provisional Joint Committee, which stated that the maintenance of the Arbitration Board was assumed for the purposes of the Report:
I do not agree that the paragraph referred to was to guarantee the permanent continuance of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, or to stop the Government from taking such action in respect of it as appeared to them to be necessary or desirable in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1922; col. 559, Vol. 155.]
One wonders what has brought about that change of view. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor presided over the particular meeting where the Whitley constitution was accepted, and actually moved the Clause embodying the Civil Service Arbitration Board as part and parcel of the Whitley Council of the Civil Service. Are we to assume that a change of Chancellor of the Exchequer carries with it the right to abolish all that his predecessor in office has done, without any consultation with the parties concerned and without informing this House as to the actual effect? I venture to say, with a very short knowledge of this House, that that is contrary to all Parliamentary procedure and experience.
Then the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the 19th July, said:
It is not the case that the National Whitley Council, as reconstituted, will take over any function of the Civil Service Arbitration Board.
So far as we know, the National Whitley Council has never been reconstituted. The National Whitley Council in the Civil Service was adopted in July, 1919, at a conference in Caxton Hall presided over by the Lord Privy Seal. The constitution was that approved by the Lord Privy Seal, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have this position. After that Board is abolished, three Members of Parliament, Government supporters, are added to the National Whitley Council. The whole constitution of the Council has been changed without any consideration, and there is an absolute departure from everything in regard to it.
I want, briefly, to put the position that arises now. The original Conciliation and Arbitration Board was set up by the Government to meet the great unrest prevalent in the Civil Service. Prior to that, there had been no permanent machinery for settling grievances in the Civil Service. It is true I have not been long a member of the House, but I have sat in another part of this building, again and again, in past years, and have heard Members on the Floor of this House condemn the deplorable waste of public time in discussing details of administration of the Post Office and other Departments, when there ought to have been some machinery set up for meeting it elsewhere. I have heard the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others, again and again, put up that plea in this House—a plea for which, I am bound to say, the members of the Civil Service thought there was a reasonable ground, and that the time of the National Assembly should not be spent, as it very often was for several days on end, in discussing, on the Postmaster-General's Estimates and other Estimates, details of administration, personal grievances, questions of remuneration, salaries and wages, which ought to have been settled outside this House with proper and adequate machinery set up for the purpose. For the first time in its
history, that machinery was set up in the Civil Service Arbitration Board, and the operation of the Council which bears a name honoured in this House. The result has been that very little has been heard of Civil Service questions on the. Floor of this House. That machinery has been available, and we have been able to settle the grievances outside. It will be within the memory of the House that the Postmaster-General admitted, across the Floor, that the relations since, between the representatives and his Department, were very much happier than they had been, and had resulted in mutual good on both 'sides. What has happened in that Department I know can be demonstrated in regard to other Departments.
I want, then, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position, seeing that the amount expended is a mere bagatelle. The outside expenditure is £4,000. It is less than that actually, but I am giving the round figures. I do not want to err on the wrong side, or to understate or overstate my case, and particularly I do not want to overstate it. It costs less than £4,000, and it is very fair to assume that the expenditure in the future would be very much less, because a far less number of cases are taken to the Civil Service Arbitration Board than before. It is fair to assume, that as conditions get more settled and more stable, there will be less recourse to this Arbitration Board, and, therefore, the expense is bound to be less. I imagine that the Government's reasons for their attitude are these. The first is the expense involved, though I do not think that is the main reason. The main reason is that the Board is not under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Appeal can be made over his head, as it were, to this independent tribunal, and, when it gives its verdicts, they are final and binding. But there has been no complaint from any side that the verdicts have been wrong, and against the weight of argument. The Arbitration Board is weighted by those people whom one might reasonably think, if one put prejudice into it, would be against the ordinary employé—that is, large employers of labour, with only one Labour member, and in each case they are nominated by the Government. Those concerned on the other side have no voice in it. One cannot emphasise that too much. The third reason is that
the Board is a deterrent to the smooth working of the Whitley system. There is no evidence of that. On the contrary, the Board has made the Whitley Council efficient, and provided a means whereby, when a disagreement has been registered, they have been able to take it to an independent court of arbitration. That is the essence of Whitleyism.
Now it seems that not only is the Board to be abolished, but actually the Whitley Council itself is to be over-weighted on one side in the interests of one of the parties to the cases that will come forward. I submit there can be no justification, in ordinary common fairness, for anything like this. The Board, as I have said, costs but a trifle. Salaries, wages, and allowances have cost £2,444, and incidental expenses £80, so that there has been no tremendous waste on this particular side. If services charged to other Votes are added, such as accommodation, fuel, light, stationery, printing, postage, etc., the total cost is £3,909. It ought to be beneath the dignity of a Government to endeavour to get out of its honourable obligations in order to save a paltry sum of money like that. Surely we are concerned with bigger things than this on the financial side. We can only feel that there are other reasons than those which have yet appeared on the surface. This machinery is set up to deal with the whole cases of 300,000 people. I venture to say there is not an organisation in any industry, or anywhere, dealing with so many complex problems, and so many persons in the aggregate, that can be run under such inexpensive conditions, and it will save, so far as money is concerned, a tremendous lot more in the time of Members of this House and of the House itself, and in the friction and unrest that is bound to arise in the Service itself. The Civil Service Staff Organisations offered to bear half of the expense. They felt that if the Treasury were so impoverished, that less than 4,000 was going to make all the difference, they would generously pay out of their own pocket one-half of the expense. Certainly I should think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have no grounds of complaint on that score. They have tried to meet him quite generously and help him out of his financial embarrassments.
One finds it very difficult in arguing this case to understand how it is that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer can maintain his position, in view of the pledges given by his Government through the mouth of the present Lord Privy Seal, and the fact that the Whitley Councils are in being and for this particular purpose. Surely the State as an employer is subject to the same failings as individual employers, and, where they have disagreement with their employés, it. is equally necessary that there. should be some impartial tribunal if the machinery of conciliation or Whitleyism is to work smoothly. That is our whole case. The Government is continually impressing on private employers the necessity of having recourse to arbitration to avoid the misery and disturbance which arise out of strikes and lock-outs. In order to save this we are asking that the Government should put themselves in precisely the same position. They have accepted that position for five years. It has worked smoothly and without disadvantage to the Government; it has saved the time of M.P.s, and one really wonders what is necessary in order to persuade them to abide by it. I can only leave the matter here with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am hoping, now that our case has been put forward, he will in the light of the evidence given—and I should like to think he did not know of the specific pledges and the bargains entered into by his predecessor—accept the view that the Civil Service Arbitration Board was part and parcel of an arrangement sanctioned by the Lord Privy Seal and, in fact, moved by him in a resolution at a meeting of civil servants at Caxton Hall of which he happened to be Chairman. Surely that commits the Government, and there is a moral obligation upon them to abide by their own contract in this respect, and, above all, not to break it without consultation with the other parties concerned and without giving them any notice of the intention in addition to weight the whole machinery, as it seems, in the interest of the Government as against the employés. That is the case I wish to put before the House this afternoon. I thank hon. Members for their patience. I have endeavoured to put the case briefly and concisely, and it is upon these facts that I move the reduction of the Vote.

Mr. BANTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I very much regret the necessity of bringing forward a matter of this kind. It seems to me that the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is unanswerable, and under the circumstances we shall be pleased to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say in justification of the position which has been taken up. This is a most inopportune time for such a movement as that proposed by the Department. This is a time when labour and capital should work harmoniously together. We are all suffering from the general unrest, and it therefore is all the more necessary that employer and employed should seek to promote the general efficiency. We want more co-operation, a. better understanding and a spirit of goodwill between the two sides. I have taken part for some years on different boards and committees, not from the employés' point of view, but from the employer's. I have sat on these committees for many years. We have worked together most harmoniously, and with great success, and the machinery which has in recent years been set up has tended. to make the working more smooth and to secure better results. That has been the result of the existence of a spirit of goodwill and of good understanding. I have never known, when such a. spirit prevailed, disagreement to continue. We have been able to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the parties interested. I cannot conceive why the Government should have done so much in recent years to establish these various Boards and Councils and then should themselves suddenly break away from the system. We have no desire to labour this question. The whole case has been presented in a most admirable spirit. We want to use no provocative language. We believe that the action which has been taken is due to a misunderstanding or a misapprehension. We would rather approach the matter with a desire to find out some way to improve the machinery and to create more co-operation between employer and employed. We think that is the better way to solve the whole problem, and not to take the most disastrous course against which we are now protesting. I think we have under the control of the Government and in our municipalities as loyal a body of men and women as one could wish to find. Things, of course, are not
perfect, but they can be made more perfect if we go on in the right way, which is not in the direction proposed by the Government. We cannot conceive that the Government are actuated simply by monetary considerations There must be some other motive and sonic misunderstanding. We will not use any harsh language, but we feel it would be disastrous if the idea were allowed to get root in the minds of civil servants that the Government simply made a concession in a time of stress because they felt it would be disastrous to their power if they refused it, and that they only intended it for the time being. We should not like that idea to be entertained by the workpeople. We want them to have confidence in their employers and to work harmoniously with them.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The House has had the benefit of two very interesting and lucid speeches on this question, and what has been said by the hon. Members on the history of this matter needs to have very little added to it. The speeches, however, have proceeded upon some misapprehension of the real facts of the ease and of the considerations which must be applied to a problem of this character. Before t deal with the speeches of the hon. Members I would like upon this occasion, as I have now been for more than a year as Chancellor of the Exchequer the head of the Civil Service, to express my complete admiration of the Service which at the present time I have the privilege of leading. I cannot use exaggerated language with regard to the merits of the great Service which this country happens to possess. I am sure there is no Civil Service in the world which compares in efficiency and in the traditions of honour which guide the action of those large numbers of people who conduct the business of our country. Accordingly, whatever I have to say in the course of this Debate it certainly has no reference to and contains no suggestion of any doubt at all as to the loyalty of civil servants, and as to their readiness to do everything which is fitting and proper in relation to the Government which for the moment they serve, and when I say the Government I mean any Government which happens to be in the place now occupied by the present Government. I am sure they will give equally loyal and devoted service whatever party
happens to be in a position of power in the State at the time.
The Arbitration Board with which we are concerned, if I may be forgiven for a brief review of the history of this matter, came into being in the time of the War, and was obviously, on the face of it, regarded as a temporary expedient. It was intended to form a method of adjudication open to the Civil Service in one direction and one direction only, because its terms of reference allow the Board of Arbitration to consider only claims for increased remuneration. It is a curious fact that this is so, and it maybe accounted for because at the time, no doubt when the pinch of war prices was being felt, claims were being made for higher salaries, and this tribunal was set up for the sole purpose of dealing with those claims for increased remuneration. It was not a Board of Arbitration which could deal for instance with any claim which might be put forward on the part of the Government to the effect that circumstances had occurred which justified a reduction of remuneration. Obviously it was a body emerging from the special conditions of war, and has been continued since then up till the time at which it was decided that after it had completed the cases before it it should cease to function.
The whole atmosphere of the position has been entirely changed by the setting up of Whitley Councils. The theory upon which the setting up of the Board of Arbitration was based was. that at that time civil servants had no means of making their grievances properly known and no method by which they could fully represent their just rights and claims. That situation, however, has been entirely altered, as was admitted by the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote, by the setting up of the Whitley Councils which occurred a considerable time after the Board of Arbitration was constituted. What was the object of the Council? That object could not be better described than in the speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Banton) when he said that it is an attempt to bring methods of conciliation into the conduct of our business and to bring men round a table to settle their difficulties, instead of leaving them to be settled at arms length and by methods of strife. That was the object of the 'Whitley Council. I do not think I make any exaggerated statement, Mr.
Speaker, which I say your name will for ever be honourably associated with the great institution which has already brought so much peace into industry where previously there was controversy and trouble. The Whitley Council which was set up for the Civil Service has functioned and is operating and is, at the present time, exercising a very great and useful influence throughout the whole of the Service. I do not think the hon. Members who have spoken will deny that. At the time when the Report, from which the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) quoted, was drawn up and presented, the Civil Service Board of Arbitration, as it existed, was taken into account, and it was made perfectly plain in the course of the Report that it also regarded the Civil Service Board of Arbitration as a matter of difficulty. They assumed it was to go on as a temporary expedient. Obviously, it was purely a temporary expedient. This is what is stated in one paragraph to which the hon. Member referred, but which he did not fully quote:
It. has been suggested that fixed machinery should be created to deal with other questions on which agreement has not been arrived at and which are outside the Board's terms of reference. We feel, however, that it is undesirable to suggest any fixed machinery for the solution of differences as its existence would necessarily impair the influence and authority of the National Council.
That is exactly where the difficulty of the Arbitration Board has arisen.

Mr. AMMON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him, but he cannot ignore, can he, the other Clause which states that the Whitley Council took into its ambit the Arbitration Board?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not ignore it. My hon. Friend referred to it, and I also referred to it as having been read by him. But what I would point out to him and to The House is that he ignores the fact that the existence of the Arbitration Board as a temporary expedient was recognised, and that there are references in this Report which show that the authors of the Report regarded the permanent existence of a fixed machinery for the settlement of differences as something that might weaken the authority of the National Council.

Mr. AMMON: I am very sorry to interrupt again, but the right hon. Gentle-
man is still treating them as two distinct things. That is not the position. The Civil Service Arbitration Board has been absorbed into the Whitley Council, which is entirely different from accepting it as distinct.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend is now arguing on the point, and is not disputing upon a question of fact. At least I think I should be, allowed to state my argument.

Mr. AMMON: I beg pardon.

Sir R. HORNE: The position, as I see it, is exactly as I have described, namely, that the Board of Arbitration was recognised all through as a piece of fixed machinery, originally devised to meet a War emergency, and that the authors of this Report were inclined to think that fixed machinery for the settlement of differences might be detrimental to the authority of the National Council. That is exactly what by experience the Arbitration Board has been proved to be. The Geddes Committee dealt with this matter, and I will quote from their Report, because I see that there is some confusion in the minds of hon. Members. I would ask them to remember that this is not a dispute on the question whether arbitration is a good thing or a bad thing upon which to depend. The whole question, although my hon. Friends ignore it, the real and crucial question which is before the House to-day, is whether you shall have fixed arbitration machinery always in being. That is the point. It is exactly there that the fixed machinery comes to clash with the organisation of the Whitley Council—indeed, destroys its authority, and, being always there, encourages further claims from one of the parties that is dissatisfied with what the Whitley Council does. That is not going to lead to the getting rid of difficulties, but only to exaggerating them and keeping them in being. Before I come to deal more at length with that part of the argument, let me remind the House what the Geddes Committee said upon this matter. This is apart from the question of the expense of maintaining the Board—the actual £4,000 a year which it costs. The Geddes Committee say:
Whatever justification there may have been in time of war for setting up such a body, whose awards are final and who can thus authorise expenditure without the
authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are very strongly of opinion that the main justification for the existence of the Board has disappeared with the institution of the Whitley Councils in the Civil Service. It has now become the established practice in the Civil Service to consider on these Whitley Councils questions of remuneration, so far as they relate to posts carrying salaries not exceeding £500 per annum, and, in these circumstances, we are of opinion that the need for a standing Arbitration Board no longer exists.
You have a standing system of conciliation in the Whitley Council, and the Geddes Committee report that a body which can take expenditure—because, indeed, that is its effect—out of the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought no longer to exist. Let me develop that point of view a little further. I have suggested to the House that the existence of permanent and automatic machinery of this kind encourages people never to be content with the conclusion which is arrived at by methods of conciliation. The tendency, in fact, as the House will readily understand, is this: I would again remind the House that this Board of Arbitration only exists to consider claims for increased remuneration. That is its full reference.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is an advantage.

Sir R. HORNE: It is an advantage for people whose remuneration is increased, but it is not an advantage to a body which wishes remuneration to be brought back to a proper level after it has been increased.

Lord R. CECIL: The Government can decrease it.

Sir R. HORNE: I think the Noble Lord—

Lord R. CECIL: I was only speaking to my right hon. Friend beside me.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes. but the Noble Lord is speaking in a way which rather interrupts my argument. It is as loud as I am speaking myself. In point of fact, the tendency is undoubtedly to encourage civil servants, who happen to be unable so to convince the official side of the Whitley Council that they come to an agreement, to go on to the Board of Arbitration—and that is after they have wrung from the official side of the Civil Service all the concessions which the
official side think it proper to make. Therefore, they go to the Board of Arbitration with all these concessions as the jumping-off ground for a new claim. Let me read to the House an extract from a Civil Service journal, which puts the matter in a thoroughly cynical form, as indicating the type of procedure. It says:
The Arbitration Board will have placed before them the official offer, which necessarily includes the original proposals and subsequent advances, and the staff's demands, and it is a logical conclusion that the award given must lie somewhere within those limits. More than what is demanded is, of course, not for a moment expected, and less than what has been offered would be manifestly unfair. It follows, then, that in all reasonable anticipation the Service cannot be adversely affected by the decision to submit the matter to arbitration, and in any case a really unsatisfactory award will not tie the hands of the Federation to the same extent as would a disappointing Whitley agreement arrived at and ratified by the Federation's representatives.
Now observe what is the result of that conclusion. It means, do not arrive at an agreement under any Whitley arrangement, because that ties your hands; you are honourably bound to stand by it. But; you need not observe an unsatisfactory award that you get from the Arbitration Board your hands will be free. It reduces the Whitley system to a ludicrous position. It makes it absolutely futile. It in effect says: "If you are wise you will never come to a conciliation agreement; you will go to the Whitley Council, you will extract all that you can from the official side, but, after you have extracted all that you can, you will not agree, because that will tie your hands. Then go to the Arbitration Board. They cannot give you less by any chance than what the official side ultimately, as the result of full discussion, offer, and you may get more. In any case, after they decide, you need not be bound by it. "I am perfectly certain that any system which is going to do anything like that is going to undermine absolutely the whole theory of agreement by conciliation. I have no doubt that the House perfectly understands that the Government are not opposed to arbitration, nor am I personally. The Government brought in the very Bill to which the hon. Member referred—the Industrial Courts Bill—and passed it into law. I was myself the author of that Bill. My hon. Friend accuses me of turning my back on it.
On the contrary, I entirely approve of it. What does it do? It provides for permissive arbitration. No one is compelled to go to arbitration, but the machinery is there for the purpose. I stand by that Act, every word of it. When my hon. Friend says that I am retreating from it, he is completely inaccurate; I am standing by it. What I venture to say, however, to the Labour Benches is this Are they now for the first time in favour of compulsory arbitration?

Lord R. CECIL: Why not?

Sir R. HORNE: The Noble Lord says Why not? "but I am asking hon. Members behind him what they think of it. Their whole attitude has been against compulsory arbitration. They say, "We shall go to arbitration when it suits us."

Mr. D GRAHAM: So do the employers.

Sir R. HORNE: That is what I am saying to-day, and I will tell the House the reason in a moment, but I do say here that there are far stronger reasons for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as he is concerned, and for the Government, so far as they are concerned, being in a position in which arbitration is permissive, than there are in the case of any other body in this country. I put it to my hon. Friends of the Labour party that they cannot come here to-day and ask for compulsory arbitration and refuse to undergo it themselves. What is the position with regard to the State? The point is stated with great clearness by the Geddes Committee. If you have this system of automatic arbitration, into which the State is compelled to enter, then, indeed, you do take the control of expenditure out of the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because you leave it entirely to this body to say what any large range of servants of the State shall be paid. The servants of the State, as the Committee knows, are very numerous to-day. Take the whole of the Post Office and the whole of the other services which are concerned. Is it going to he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must keep within his own control the expenditure of the country, is entirely to surrender his own judgment in these matters to that of some independent body? It would be a very excellent cushion for me. I should then he able to say to the House of Commons and to the country,
"I am not responsible for this expenditure ";but it would be a very bad position for the taxpayer. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be that of being ready, on occasions when arbitration is suitable according to his own judgment, to allow that method to be adopted; but he is responsible for that method being adopted, and he is responsible for the expenditure involved in the result. He must not be compelled to be responsible for expenditure when he has no control.
5.0 P.M.
Accordingly, I put it to the House that, whatever be the merits of arbitration—and it has many great merits, and I myself am a most ardent advocate of it—whatever merits it has, in the case of the State and of the Exchequer, while methods of arbitration are open both to the State and to its employés according to the methods which have been enshrined in the Industrial Courts Act, to impose upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a system of compulsory arbitration is to take away that power of the purse which the House of Commons rightly demands that he should exercise. Let it be remembered that he is always, in every judgment that he forms, the person most subject to the influence of public opinion. if he forms a wrong judgment, if he refuses upon a particular occasion to go to arbitration, if he refuses to give the advances which may in a particular case be claimed, he is subject to the opinion of the House of Commons. Accordingly, it is at least likely that in the exercise of his judgment he will use the very utmost discretion which can be claimed of any public man. He is not really in the position of a private employer at all. He is not working for a profit, and therefore is not looking, with a private employer's eye, at the claims of those who serve the State. He is influenced by none of the ordinary selfish interests which apply in the case of a private employer. Is it not likely then that the servant, of the State is in a better position to have his just claims recognised than he would be if he were in private service? For all these reasons I am convinced that the continued existence of the Civil Service Arbitration Board would have been a detriment and not a help in this matter, even to the civil servants themselves. It has been, I agree, very well manned. One of the
people who have served most efficiently upon it, Sir Guy Granet. was also a member of the Geddes Committee which urged that it should be done away with It is now said that we have overweighted the Whitley Council by adding Members of Parliament to it. But we put Members of Parliament in, not as an addition to out-number those on the other side, but in places which otherwise would have been occupied by officials of the Civil Service. We did it in order to bring something more of public opinion into the exercise of the judgment of the official side of the Civil Service. Surely that is a good thing.

Lord R. CECIL: Government opinion.

Sir R. HORNE: Certainly. the opinion of the Government of the time. If my Noble Friend holds office, those he will appoint to these places will be representative of his opinion, and it is only proper that it should be so, because, after all, who is it that has got. to make up his mind upon any particular question which becomes the subject of con troversy? It is the Government of the time. My Noble Friend surely does not. say that in administration you can escape the responsibility of forming your judgment on a matter and, if necessary, take the question to the Cabinet. At any rate, it is the Government of the time which is responsible for the action that is taken. He remembers the great. controversy with the Post Office and how it reacted on the people who held office at the time rather than upon their opponents. The Government of the time bears the brunt of the decisions. Accordingly, I suppose Et would be only proper, if they had the responsibility to endure, that these people, who are on the official side are people who, in the main, are in agreement with the Government. If it is not so, it is obvious that the. opinion of the Government of the time, might. be wrecked by an adverse majority, and both their control and their responsibility would be gone. That is entirely contrary to all the features of English administration, and I hope we are not going to introduce now a system by which Governments shall have responsibility where they have no control.' Accordingly, I put it to the House that, while there. is an attempt to make a plausible case with the suggestion that we are refusing arbitration, that really
is not the basis of this case at all. The whole question is whether you are going to perpetuate and continue a system of fixed machinery of that kind. I have pointed out the reasons why such fixed machinery really destroys all the methods of conciliation which we have been trying through these years to work up and to bring to complete fruition. Under these circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a spirited, if not a heated, reply to two speeches marked by moderation and argumentative quietude, which is very often not a marked feature in cases where an attack has been levelled against the Government. I approach this question with a certain amount of detachment. I have listened very carefully to the arguments on both sides, and perhaps it will come as a sharp surprise to my right hon. Friend that I do not agree with him.

Sir R. HORNE: That is not what you are there for.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I agree with him that. there is no Civil. Service in the world which occupies so high a place in the estimation of the citizens of the community as the British Civil Service does, and they have always been marked, in their arguments for better conditions, by an amount of reserve and moderation which we all admire, But it is this very body, distinguished as it is by all these qualities, which disagrees almost entirely with the action which the Government propose to take. That certainly is a matter which must have considerable weight with the Members of the House. Certainly it weighs very much with me. A point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave very little attention, but which seems to me to be a very strong one, was a meeting reported in the "Postal and Telegraph Record "of 10th July, 1919, which took place with the present Lord Privy Seal at Caxton Hall, he being in the Chair. He gave his official sanction and blessing to the whole scheme, and that scheme included the Board. The Board was set up in 1917 and the meeting took place on 3rd July, 1919. I have looked through the right hon. Gentleman's speech and I do not see even
the remotest hint of any disagreement with the Board operating as part of the scheme.

Sir R. HORNE: There was no reference to the Board.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There was no reason for him to refer to it. It was part of it. He moved its adoption. He was the chairman of a completely agreed meeting. We are bound to ask this question. What, if anything, has happened since to alter the policy of the Government? Is there any complaint about the action of the Board in the numerous cases which have been referred to it? Not a single suggestion is made that the Board has operated other than moderately, efficiently, and fairly between all parties. What is the cause then? Here it is, presumably. It -is the Geddes Report. As far as I can see, the main case of the Geddes Report here is an endeavour to save about £3,000 a year. That is a very estimable thing to do. I. do not discount saving £3,000 a year, even when you have a Budget of about £910,000,000. It is very important to save these little amounts. But the point we have to address ourselves to to-day is, "Is it worth while? "I say, it is not worth while. It is quite evident from what one knows, and, indeed, from what one has heard in this House, that. to abolish this Board will give rise to a very considerable amount of unrest and dissatisfaction in this efficient, satisfied Service. Ls it worth while to do that? I should have thought not. Another question arises on that. The right. hon. Gentleman has made some comparisons between the Civil Service arbitration and arbitration in industrial disputes. I think the two cases differ in some very vital aspects. In industrial disputes, whether they are disputes of clerks in offices or of men working with their hands outside, they are in the open, and they have methods of presenting and enforcing their case which Civil Servants are necessarily deprived of, and you must view the thing from that totally different standpoint. Indeed, I think it may be almost said there has been no exception to the maxim that Civil Servants never strike, and, therefore, the House of Commons must approach this question with these vital differences in mind. The importance of a Civil 'Service which is efficient and is working satisfactorily no one can overestimate.
Let us have a look at this Board to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes such strong exception. First of all it is nominated by the Government. It is not in any sense a, Board which is at all likely to take a biassed view of the case which is put before it by the employés. The Government of the day have in their hands the complete power of nominating its Members. There is another advantage which the Government have in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to its limited powers of reference. It only deals with increases of remuneration. I should have thought that was a real advantage to the Government, because they cannot appeal on decreases. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that where a case comes before the Whitley Council for an increase the proceedings are almost formal, because they all hold their hand until they get to the final court of appeal. Everyone knows that much more difficult conditions arise when wages are reduced than when there is an application for wages to be increased. It is a much more difficult problem, and the more difficult problem is to the advantage of the Government as things stand at present, withdrawn from this Board to which he objects. Instead of being a disadvantage it is an advantage to the Government to have this limited reference. There is no case made here or advocated, as far as I know, for any further powers to be given to the Board. They are satisfied with it as it works at present. There is one final point. Whatever the theoretical arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may adduce—

Sir R. HORNE: They are not theoretical.

Sir D. MACLEAN: They are theoretical in this way, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about what might happen. It is hypothetical—in the future. The real fact of the matter is that this thing works well. As it works well, why disturb it? Can the right hon. Gentleman say within the 12 months of his office, or since this meeting on the 3rd July, 1919, that unfair decisions have been given against the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he say that? He cannot say it. He is satisfied with the decisions and the way they have
worked. Then, in Heaven's name, why not leave it alone? You ought to be thankful that you have a machine that is working well.

Sir R. HORNE: I did not say it is working well.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Then we ought. to have had arguments to-day containing statements of fact within the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would justify the House in the reversal of a policy which my right hon. Friend—

Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend cannot have listened to my argument.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I did, and I did not hear a single ease brought forward. The idea was that in the future something might happen whereby the control of this matter will be taken out of the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and dealt with in this way. What does that mean? It means bringing back to the House of Commons the question of the increase or decrease of salaries in the Civil Service. There are many hon. Members who have been longer in the House than I have, but I well remember the very troublous times we had to go through in regard to dissatisfaction in the postal service. There is nothing more annoying. It is degrading both to Members of Parliament and to the Civil Service employés that they have to adopt methods which is disliked by all parties in order to enforce their demands here, and it results in this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to receive deputations from Members of Parliament, has to have private interviews with Members of Parliament, and then en the Floor of the House, in some very limited time, we have a Debate, which is often not a real Debate. It is tinctured and coloured by the influences to which Members are subjected, and we do not get. the real facts of the situation. The present system is working well, and under all the circumstances, having regard to the vital difference between the Civil Service and any other industrial body outside, the satisfaction which it has given, and that no case has been made on the ground of finance, my right. hon. Friend is ill-advised in the course which he proposes to take.

Mr. HANNON: I have had an opportunity of seeing the Whitley Council of
the Civil Service in operation during the last few months, and I should like to say at once that the spirit of give and take and the spirit of mutual understanding, which is becoming more manifest every day in the deliberations of that body, are a great credit to the Civil Service. From what I have seen of the work of the Civil Service Whitley Council, I am quite satisfied that it will be impossible, in the interest of the Service. to continue side by side in future the Whitley Council and the Arbitration Board. It is quite obvious that this kindly give and take between the two sections, the official side and the staff side on the Whitley Council, must always be subject to this drawback, that the people representing the staff side must necessarily have in their minds the possibility ultimately of going before the Arbitration Board, and instead of arriving at definite and satisfactory conclusions they very often get the best they can—I do not blame them for doing so—out of the official side of the Whitley Council, in order to make it the starting point of a new bargaining when they go before the Arbitration Board. A system of that kind cannot he satisfactory to the Civil Service.
A good deal of the discussion this afternoon has had behind it the recent attempt that has been made to adjust the relationship between the Government, that is. between the taxpayer and the temporary civil servants. I had an opportunity of seeing the process of negotiation going on, and I am bound to say that I cannot conceive any outside body, detached from intimate knowledge of the Civil Service in all its variety of Departments and its varied responsibilities, with all the peculiar qualities which necessarily find themselves in so complex a staff, being able to deal efficiently and effectively with problems of that character. From what saw of the actual work of negotiation in the Civil Service Whitley Council, I was convinced that only those who have full knowledge and long experience of the actual needs and responsibilities of the Civil Service, and are fully acquainted with all that the civil servant, both as a director of employment and an employés, has to do in the day's work can really deal with questions of that very difficult character. From what I have seen, I should like to assure the House that the whole function of the official side in the Whitley
Council negotiations has been to maintain a fair balance between the taxpayer and the public servant of the Crown. I had an opportunity of listening very carefully to a long exchange of views between the very competent and capable representatives of the staff side and the representatives of the official side, and I must say on behalf of the official side that there was every evidence of full consideration and full understanding of the needs of the staff side, and the greatest conceivable desire, to go to the utmost limits, consistent with honest discharge of public duty, to meet the representations which the staff side made.
In this House the main responsibility of Members of Parliament is to safeguard the public purse. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully discharge that duty if he has to delegate to some body outside the duty and responsibility of dealing with questions of increased remuneration in the Civil Service, or any other question that might arise if the Arbitration Board were to continue? I do not think it would be possible for him to discharge his duties to the State. In the deliberations that have taken place, and at which I was privileged to be present, all the cards were on the table. There was no want of frankness of either side. On the part of the staff side the case was presented with great vigour and great eloquence, and without the omission of any detail that could be brought forward on behalf of their case. On the other hand, the, official side gave the fullest consideration, to every point brought- forward, and it ever there was a case in which a full, hottest and frank expression of opinion was -brought to bear on the settlement of a very difficult, very delicate, and from the official side a very unenviable duty, it was shown in the course of these negotiations. What did actually take place at the negotiations was that the official side went to the ultimate limit that they considered it possible to go in order to meet the demands made by the other side. There was no margin left for future bargaining, and if the House were now to agree to the continuation of the Arbitration Board we should have this extraordinary position, which was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of an offer having been made, which was the outside limit which could
have been made in justice to the State and the taxpayer, being used as the beginning of a new set of negotiations.
The House will understand that there may be cases in which arbitration would be useful. Anybody acquainted with Civil Service administration can at once think of a multitude of such possible cases, but where such cases arise the Government itself, responsible for administration and responsible to the taxpayers for the careful expenditure of public money, is the body that ought to determine under what circumstances cases ought to be referred to arbitration. It has been suggested that the Arbitration Board was continued after the Whitley Council was set up. That is quite true, but when the Whitley Council for the Civil Service was established, it was, as in the case of all the Whitley Councils in the ordinary industrial life of the country, a pure experiment. and it was perfectly right to allow the experiment to develop before the Government took the responsibility of abolishing the Arbitration Board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt very fully and fairly with the actual terms of reference of the Arbitration Board. It was to deal with increased remuneration. How can a body, whose original purpose was to deal with questions of increased remuneration, continue to function with any hope of justifying itself in the public mind in days when everybody is thinking, not of increased remuneration, but how much they can stem the tide from ebbing down. The establishment of the Arbitration Board was a purely war time expedient, and, like many other war time expedients, it must be abolished. At the time when the Board was introduced, it was said that there was not the machinery in the Civil Service which could adjust questions relating to increased remuneration, with full satisfaction to the Civil Service, and the Government agreed, not as has been suggested in some speeches, under the stress of war conditions, but because it was perfectly fair, to institute a Board which would examine these claims for increased remuneration.
The reasons, as I understand, for the abolition of the Board have been elaborated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it may be worth while to summarise them. In the first place, the
Government, as an employer, is in an entirely different position from an outside employer. I believe that the Government ought to be the good employer of the country. In its dealings with its servants it ought to give real consideration to every aspect of legitimate demand regarding conditions of service and remuneration. The outside private employer carrying on his industry for private profit naturally makes the best bargain he can, and in that case there may be, and indeed frequently is, justification for resorting to methods of industrial disputes that come before this Board. But the civil servant is not deprived of the opportunity of going before an Industrial Court. The Industrial Court is open to him as to any other class of workers in the country, and, though I think that it was not originally contemplated that the clerical side of the Civil Service should have access to the Industrial Court, it is now agreed by the Government that they can, if they wish, go to an Industrial Court and have their claims determined in the same way as any other class of employés in the country.
The next point was the unconstitutional position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government must occupy in delegating their duties, in dealing with their servants, to an outside body with no responsibility to the Government of this House., and that that could not be continued consistently with the maintenance of constitutional system. Finally, there was the recommendation of the Geddes Committee. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) talks very lightly about the £3,000 or £4,000 a year saved in respect of the cost of administration of this Board. When the Geddes Committee was first suggested, I do not think that he welcomed it very warmly. Subsequently his attitude towards it as well as the attitude of a great many other people, changed, and they very willingly supported the conclusions of the Committee. Here is a case in which the recommendation of the Committee amounts not merely to an economy of 3,000 or £4,000, but to a simplified administration in the adjustment of the relations of the Civil Service with the State by one body instead of two, and I think that it would be exceedingly foolish if full consideration were not given to that recommendation of the Committee.
For the Civil Service to have an Arbitration Board in conditions which make arbitration compulsory would be to place them in a different position entirely from all other employés outside, and while the State ought to be the model employer in treating its servants, if not generously at least fairly, I cannot accept the proposal that the civil servant should be placed in a position entirely different from that occupied by employés in varying occupations outside. The Wages question in connection with the operations of Whitey Councils has been dealt with very satisfactorily without any introduction of surplus machinery of the kind suggested by the maintenance of the. Arbitration Board.
Take, for example, the excellent Council which is doing such admirable work in the pottery trade. The Joint Industrial Council in the pottery trade decided to appoint a committee whose function is entirely to deal with the wages question. In only one instance, since that body began to function, has it been necessary to refer any question of disagreement for an adjustment of wages to the Council itself. In the case of the textile trades, the. Whitley Council has been doing satisfactory work, from the point of view both of employer and employed, in the great textile area in the West. Riding. That committee has been appointed. to deal with the wages question, and there has not been a single case in which the decisions of that committee had to be carried forward for further consideration and reviewed by the Whitley Council itself. That being so, it is not desirable to introduce for the purpose of the Civil Service additional machinery which is unnecessary, which is not used in other branches of employment, and which the conditions render more difficult in Civil Service administration.
I can hardly conceive a Department with the remuneration of its servants subject to the decisions of an outside body, a body which may have very little intimate knowledge of the administration of the Department, being effective and satisfactory, if the grading of its servants is to be determined by this outside body. In all these circumstances, the House will be wise to accept the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to oppose the reduction of this Vote. I desire to pay the highest tribute I can to the efficiency of the civil servants in this
country. From what I can see of the civil servants who meet with heads of the Departments at the Treasury, they are of a quality of which any nation may be proud, and I think that we are going as far as we can in giving them an opportunity by frank, free discussion and exchange 'of views at the Whitley Council of getting everything they want, realising the advantages which the Service can give them, without any additional complication and unnecessary amendment of Civil Service administration.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) attaches great importance to the point that the Government cannot tolerate any outside authority fixing standards of wages, and in the course of his observations he pointed to the fact that civil servants in present conditions have the right of reference to the Industrial Court. Therefore I fail to sec what is the wide distinction between my hon. Friend and others who have taken part in this Debate in favour of the restoration of the Civil Service Arbitration Board.

Mr. HANNON: My right bon. Friend understands that the Industrial Court is not compulsory.

Mr. ROBERTS: Of course, that constitutes a further point on behalf of the civil servant. It does not give him the assurance that, in case of differences arising on the Whitley Council, there will be a reference to arbitration at all; but if the Treasury does assent to such reference the Treasury must, to that extent, be abrogating its functions and placing it. upon an outside authority to determine questions of wages. I was about to say that the question is fraught with considerable difficulty, and I may relate the facts which led un to the creation of this body. When the Reconstruction Committee issued the. Report associated so honourably with Mr. Speaker, the matter was referred to the Ministry of Labour, over which I was presiding for the time being in turn, reported to the Government the recommendations of this Committee, and suggested that they were. of such a character as to warrant the Government in commending them to the acceptance of employers and trade unions throughout the country.
In due course the Government accepted that view. Then it became apparent that the Government could not commend to private employers a system which they would be unwilling to adopt themselves. Hence the Government were driven by the logic of circumstances to agree to apply the principle of Whitleyism to the Civil Service. At that time, of course, I was pressed by Civil Service organisations and other bodies on this matter. I pointed out to the Civil Service bodies that the conditions in the Civil Service were dissimilar from those prevailing in outside enterprises. There was the primary difficulty of constituting a panel, and while on the Civil Service joint councils you have a panel intended to be comparable to that of the employers' panel, in fact there is only one employer in the matter. Therefore, the Joint Industrial Council, as understood in general terms, was not applicable to the Civil Service. But there was then a strong desire that the principles of Whitleyism should be applied, and for my part I am glad of this Debate, because it gives us an opportunity of reviewing the development of that system.
The Government, by the acceptance of joint councils, did accept the responsibility of diminishing to an extent the authority of the Treasury, and they did so with the full knowledge of what was involved, and they agreed that there must be some body outside the Treasury that should have a voice in controlling the wages and conditions which will apply in the Civil Service. Another difficulty which presented itself to our minds was the existence then of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. In order to relieve myself of as much responsibility as possible, I naturally set up a Committee to consider what modifications were necessary in the general scheme to make it applicable to the Civil Service, because that is the way Ministers have of dealing with difficulties in getting a task on to other people. I had to preside over the meetings of these Committees, and I well remember recognising that the existence of the Civil Service Arbitration Board was a fact which had to be taken into serious consideration. But the upshot of it was that we accepted the existence of the Board as representing the policy of the. Government, and, therefore, en-
deavoured to devise a scheme which would embrace this Civil Service Arbitration Board. The Civil Service were entitled then to expect that it was part of the arrangement into which they had been able to enter with the Government.
I recognised at the time, and have recognised since, that those who defend the retention of the Civil Service Arbitration Board do, to an extent, defend the principle of the abrogation of Treasury control. There is no getting away from that fact. Therefore I am. rather interested—I will put it no higher than that—to learn that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have insisted upon the complete restoration of Treasury control should see it possible to give support to this principle. That is only by the way. I accept it. knowing it to be inherent in the system. Some such body as the Civil Service Arbitration Board is absolutely imperative. If this: body has not worked properly, it is within the competence of the Treasury to set up another body and to se that its terms of reference are such as will give the Treasury equal power with the other side to require a review of conditions as they arise. My hon. Friend said that the Civil Service was distinct from any other set of workers in the country. That is quite true. The civil servant has never yet claimed, or certainly has not exercised, the right to strike. but if he is denied the principle of arbitration you must grant to him, without reserve, the right to organise and to ase the ordinary methods of promoting his case. which is that of the ordinary citizen of the country.

Mr. HANNON: Against the State?

Mr. ROBERTS: Against the State. The State is his employer After all, what my hon. Friend has argued mainly is that there should be some Member of the Government who is to be invested with autocratic power. Unless there be an arbitration body. the Treasury can instruct their representatives on the Whitley Council to veto any proposals that may be introduced by the other side. It is because of the inherent difficulties of the whole circumstance that I want to state, after a good deal of reflection and after having been brought into consultation with parties holding various views, that in the Civil Service you must have
some method of adjusting wages and general conditions. I agree that the better course is to have these Councils, foe it is only by the development of goodwill and a spirit of compromise that conditions can ever be settled on a satisfactory basis. Let us look at the question from a practical point of view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that the Civil Service representatives will refuse to make any agreement on the Joint Council because of the fact that there is the Arbitration Board lying beyond, and that they will therefore be induced to extract the greatest. possible concessions From the Treasury representative. In experience, what happens? If the Treasury representative found that that was the regular policy of the Civil Service representatives, it would restrain him from revealing the largest of the concessions that he was going to make in the Civil Service. The other side would find that they had defeated their own purpose, and that it. was much better to work in the spirit of the Joint Council and to settle. the matter on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, if the Treasury found that the civil servants were able to persist in reference to the Arbitration Board, and that that method meant that the State was being imposed upon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would comp to the House and reveal the whole matter. and would say, "This system is not satisfactory. We must substitute something else for it. "So in practice the Civil Service representatives would find that their best policy was to proceed entirely in accord with the principle of conciliation, with agreements of a voluntary character.
There is no exact analogy between the Joint. Councils in the Civil Service and the Joint Industrial Councils outside I am fairly well acquainted with the history and development of the council associated with the pottery trade. It was the first of its kind created. I took part in the opening ceremony at Hanley I know members of that body fairly well Indeed, I am very often in receipt of literature which they prepare. If my hon. Friend is in close touch with them, he will realise this. The Pottery Trade Joint Industrial Council has taken the initiative in the formation of an association of Joint Industrial Councils and interim reconstruction committees. These
bodies are operating with a great deal of experience, and, in the main, I believe, are manned on both sides by persons who are genuinely anxious to make the scheme of Joint Industrial Councils a complete success. These bodies have represented, or are about to represent, to the Government that two things at least are necessary in order to complete this scheme of councils. One is that. when the majority of the parties. 75 per cent. of both sides, have come to terms, they should be invested with legal power to compel outside bodies to comply with such agreement. There is nothing very new about that. It is one of the principles I have frequently argued in the Trade Union Congress. There I was always defeated. But I believe the trade union movement has come to recognise that there is a great deal to be said for the principle. I believe they are now being converted to it. It is the principle of the Trade Boards Act. You compel the unwilling employer to do what the reasonable employer has agreed to he the right and proper thing.
These Joint Industrial Councils, one of which has been alluded to in very flattering terms, are now demanding an Act of the Government. But a point more pertinent to our present discussion is that they recognise that there are occasions when the voluntary principle within the Joint Industrial Council may fail to effect an agreement. Such occasions have been very rare, but they do arise. They are now convinced of the necessity of an arbitration body being appointed in association with the scheme of Joint Industrial Councils. I understand that they are suggesting to the Government that a Central Board should be created, corresponding very closely to the Board that now exists in association with the. Joint Councils in the Civil Service. There must be some authority that will decide these matters as between the Government and the employé apart from the political parties. I well remember that a few years ago we had an almost degrading spectacle here on certain occasions during the year, when almost every Member present would be anxious to speak in order that he might say something in support of an organised body of civil servants in his own constituency. Of course, civil servants, like anyone else, are perfectly entitled to take advantage of anything that is at their disposal. But that system was
degrading to public life. Questions could not be considered on their merits. As between one opposing party and another you get demands constantly expanding and acquiescence also. Therefore, I hail the institution of this system as relieving Parliament of a spectacle which was most degrading.
Because the conditions in the Civil Service are unlike those in general employment, you must apply different methods for dealing with them. If you expect that men shall refrain from striking, you must give them some special method in compensation, whereby they can get finality in the determination of their conditions. First of all, I was favourably inclined towards the Government case. I have discussed it with Members of the Government, in order to ascertain what may be said on one side or the other. If we have decided to abandon this Civil Service Arbitration Board it must inevitably follow that we recognise the right of a civil servant freely to organise, and to exercise the right to strike if he be unable to get satisfaction, as he understands it The question of cost is hardly a point to be considered seriously. £3,909 a year is, of course, a matter that ought to be considered by Parliament. for every item of expenditure ought to be scrutinised. I have never subscribed to the extreme theory of economy Economy very often consists of wise expenditure. I believe that the expenditure of a small suns like this is really remunerative to the State, because it gives us contentment within the Service, without which you cannot get or maintain the efficiency which is the proud boast of the Civil Service.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am entirely in favour of arbitration in all trade disputes. I go further, and ay that I am in favour of compulsory arbitration. Rather than have strikes on behalf of the workmen and lock-outs on behalf of the employers there should be compulsory arbitration. I am in favour of the Civil Service Arbitration Board to complete the work of the Whitley Council. I am not in favour of the Civil Service Arbitration Board as it exists to-day, and think the Government are quite justified in proposing to bring it to an end. There is something in what has been
said by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) in favour of a Civil Service Arbitration Board, properly constituted, with full powers, but here we have a one-sided arbitration board, weighted against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and limited in its operations to one subject. It deals only with applications for increases of salary, instead of covering the whole ground, and I do not think the Government would be justified in continuing its operations. If it were an arbitration board equipped with full powers to deal with every possible question which could arise before a Whitley Council, whether of raking salaries, or reducing salaries, or conditions of service, that would be a different matter. Where the Whitley Council hail endeavoured, by means of conciliation to deal with such subjects and where means of conciliation have failed, then the subjects might be brought before such a board as I have described, and the decision of that hoard should be binding on both parties. That is the sort of board I would welcome in connection with the Civil Service, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should also welcome it. The argument of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) that the Chancellor should have control, and that these matters should not pass out of his hands, leaves me perfectly cold. I think the Chancellor should welcome the Petting up of an independent body. which would take the control of these matters entirely our of his hands.
It would be a great advantage to him if, instead of having his time and his energies taxed by dealing with all the issues which may arise in the. Civil Service, he had an independent body of men such as the present Civil Service Arbitration Board, but equipped with greater powers. The present Arbitration Board is an excellent body to deal with the questions which might be submitted to it, if it were constituted with wider powers and could cover the whole range of operation As it is limited to-day, I think the Geddes Committee were justified in recommending its abolition, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite justified in seeking to carry out those recommendations. In saying so, I do not mean that we ought to dismiss the whole question of an Arbitration Board for the Civil Service.
I think those who speak for the Civil Service should not have put forward a case based on the demand that the Board, as it is presently constituted, should be continued, but should have put forward a case in favour of enlarging the operations of the Board. As it is at present, the Civil Service has nothing to lose by bringing a claim before the Arbitration Board, but they have everything to gain, while on the other hand, the Chancellor has nothing to gain and everything to lose. The only issue that can come before the Arbitration Board is a demand on the part of the civil servants for an increase of salary. If agreement is not arrived at before the Whitley Council on such a claim, then it comes before the Arbitration Board. The Board really exists only for the one purpose, of securing increases of salaries for civil servants. A proper Arbitration Board, functioning freely and fairly. and holding the scales evenly between the contending parties, and dealing not only with questions of increases of wages but also with questions of decreases of wages, and with all other points which may arise as to conditions of service, and so forth, is the only kind of Board from which you will get satisfaction.
I listened carefully to all the speeches made to-day and my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), stated his case very well and very moderately but the conclusion I have come to, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no other choice open to him, but to bring this one-sided arrangement to an end. My only hope is that this will not be the end of arbitration in the Civil Service but that a more powerful Board may be set up to cover the whole ground. Until that is done, I quite appreciate the contention put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that while he has the Whitley Council on his one hand acting as a conciliation body, he has on the other hand this Arbitration Board overshadowing the Whitley Council. There is no hope in the continuance of that state of things and it should be brought to an end as speedily as possible, but I urge upon the representative of the Treasury, that arbitration should not be entirely abolished. They should carefully consider the setting up of a fully empowered Board to deal with the whole of this work and relieve the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the
burdens which these applications and disputes entail. There should be a system by which these matters would be left to a body, such as I have suggested, to determine the issues between the Civil Service and the State.

Lord R. CECIL: My hon. Friend who has just sat down made a rather surprising speech. He says he is in favour of arbitration and of compulsory arbitration, and he is in favour of compulsory arbitration as applied to the Civil Service, but he is also in favour of abolishing the only compulsory arbitration which exists in the Civil Service on the ground that it is one-sided. Surely a gentleman coming from his part of the country, ought to have more regard for logic. Surely the conclusion from his reasoning is, not that we ought to abolish this Board, but rather that we ought to extend its reference—which can be done just as easily.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: No claim for that has been made.

Lord R. CECIL: I am quite satisfied there will be no objection to extending its reference. I cannot imagine there would be any objection, at arty rate, to extending its reference so as to enable it to consider all questions of decreases as well as increases of remuneration. The employés would not, I am sure, have the slightest objection to that, because the present position is not really one-sided against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but is one-sided in his favour. If he, after a discussion before the Whitley Council, decides on a decrease there is no power of bringing it to the Arbitration Board. The Arbitration Board cannot consider it at all, and the position is exactly as it was before the creation of the Board.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Does the Noble Lord not recognise that that is to the disadvantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He is bound to submit any proposal for an increase to the Board, but if it is a case of a decrease he cannot submit it to the Arbitration Board.

Lord R. CECIL: That is quite true. I agree that he is deprived of the power of going to the Board of Arbitration in such cases, and, as far as I am concerned, I should be very glad to see the reference extended so as to cover all questions of
remuneration and not only the questions of increases. Whether it ought. to go still further or not, is a matter for consideration, but for the moment we are only considering the question of remuneration, and, as far as that is concerned, it is not worth while arguing whether the present system works out to the advantage or to the disadvantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In any case, it is not complete, and it ought to be made complete. But surely that is no ground for abolishing the Board altogether.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I understood the argument to be that the Board as presently constituted, should be continued. I followed the speeches carefully, and no proposal was made for an extension of its powers, and therefore the issue was as between the continuance of the Board as it is now constituted and its abolition.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that is quite a fair way of putting it. We have laid before us here a proposal by the Executive Government to abolish the Board. The argument of those who desire its continuance has been to say, "No. You have not made out a case for abolishing it. You may have made out a case for modifying it, but the Government proposal is to abolish it." I should be entirely with my hon. Friend and would support him to the utmost of my power if he were to propose that the Government should enlarge the terms of reference of the Board, and as far as I can learn—though I cannot speak on their behalf—hon. Members who sit behind me would also be in favour of that course. I regret the decision of the Government in this matter on several grounds. In the first place, I think it is a very unfortunate precedent for the Government to set. It is very unfortunate that they, as model employers, should take away a provision which employés of the Government very much value, which as far as I can learn has not worked badly so far, and which has done something to promote content among those employed by the Government. To take away that concession—if you like to call it so—granted during the War, is a bad precedent to set to some employers in industries in the country.
I have been told of cases in a particular part of the country—I do not wish to
mention names—where very much the same thing has been done by employers: where works committees established during the War, with the happiest prospects of making much better relations between employers and employés, have been withdrawn with the inevitable consequence that the old bad feeling, which was notorious in that particular part of the country, has, to a large extent, returned. I have been so informed by a very highly skilled observer, and that kind of thing is very unfortunate in the present condition of affairs. This proposal gives colour to the suggestion that the Government is taking the same course as has unfortunately been taken in some industries. It is said we must adopt this proposal, because the continuation of the Arbitration Board will injure the working of the Whitley Councils. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he replies, will be able to furnish chapter and verse, for the injury which has been done to the Whitley Councils. These bodies have been in joint, operation for something like three years; is there any ground for saying that the Whitley Councils are working badly, and that their bad working is due to the existence of the Arbitration Board? I shall be interested to hear if the Financial Secretary can give us any specific cases showing that that is so. So far, the evidence is the other way.
The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) is in favour of the Government's action. I understand that he is one of the three Members of Parliament who have been put on the Civil Service Whitley Council, and he is in favour of it. He is full of praise of the Whitley Council. He says that nothing can be better than the way in which the Whitley Council works, that nothing can be better than the action both of the staff side and of the official side, that they are most anxious to reach agreement, and that they treat all questions with the greatest fairness. He is against the continuance of the Arbitration Board. but, as far as I can make out, his main objection is that the Arbitration Board not consisting of officials, have not got that wonderful knowledge of the conditions of the Civil Service which enables them to deal with the difficult and intricate questions that come before them. I do not believe that, but, if it be true, what is he doing on the Whitley Council?
He has not got that intimate knowledge of the Civil Service which would enable him to deal with these terrible difficulties and complicated questions. The Government, it appears, deliberately ejected three of these official super-men, and pot on three Members of Parliament.

The FINANCIAL. SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): They were not ejected.

Lord R. CECIL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us exactly the reverse. However, I will not say they were ejected, but that they replaced three who would have been officials by three Members of Parliament. Three experts have been replaced by three common Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say common in the sense of ordinary and not specially skilled in Civil Service affairs. I confess that if these questions are so marvellously intricate that only civil servants can hope to understand them, it is very difficult to see why three Members of Parliament have been added to the Whitley Council. Of course, they have not been added for that purpose, but. in order to provide Parliamentary defence for the Government. when they are attacked on these matters. That is the main ease that is put forward—the prospective injury to the Whitley Council. I have heard no other serious argument used, except the constitutional one, to which I am coming in a moment. I do not believe that there is any evidence that that injury has occurred, and it does not seem at all likely that it ever will occur. I do not believe it is in the least true to say that a body does work less well because there is an appeal from its consideration—I cannot say its decisions. On the contrary, so far as it has any effect at all, I believe it adds to the care and industry with which they approach these questions. At any rate, as far as I have heard, there is no evidence of any injury that has taken place. To abolish a body which is doing good work and—this is the most important part—which is giving great satisfaction to those employed, in the fear that at some, future time an injury may occur to the Whitley Council, seems to me very unwise, and I venture to say this, that if it be really feared that the effect of this will be that those who appear before the Whitley Council will be utterly unreason-
able—and that is what I understand the argument to be, that the civil servants will make a claim, will listen to what the Government offer in answer to that claim, but will not attempt to agree with it—I say the answer is very simple. Give the Arbitration Board, if it has not got it, already, absolute power to give either less or more than what the Government have offered, and I am sure there will not be any tendency to be unreasonable in making appeals in such circumstances.
I come now to what, to my mind, is much the most. important part of this discussion, and that is the attitude which I think is at the bottom of the whole of the action of the Government. in this matter, namely, that it is wrong that anything should take away, should diminish, the complete power of the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide these things exactly as they like. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be supreme; that. is the view. I venture to think that is utterly unsound, and I personally resent this attitude—I say so quite frankly—taken up by all sections of all bureaucracies, that they are to he supreme, and that any attempt to interfere with their discretion is an attack on their privileges and their rights. I am sure it is wrong, and the sooner we get out of that atmosphere the better. There is no reason in the world why the decisions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to Government employés should not he reviewed by an appropriate court or an appropriate tribunal, and, for my part., I am quite sure it would be a great advantage. I have not an unlimited admiration for the way in which the Treasury deal with these matters, and I should be very glad to see, not only in this matter but in other matters, some means of questioning their decisions in matters of this kind. I am sure they are making a great mistake in putting their claim too high, and sooner or later they will find themselves met by violent indignation on the part of the outside public, but in point of fact they never can be. supreme, and that is where the Chancellor. of the Exchequer's argument. finally breaks down. There will always be an appeal to this House, and the real question you will have to settle is whether in the public interest matters of this kind can better be settled by a tribunal of appeal or by an appeal to this House. I
have no question or hesitation whatever in saying that for the decision of matters of this kind this House is as bad a tribunal as you can possibly devise.
I remember very well the difficulties with which we were faced when I was first in Parliament. Appeals were made to us by sections of the Civil Service, and it happened very often in the case of the Post Office. I am not complaining of it. They were doing the only thing they could do under the circumstances, which was to appeal from what they regarded as an unjust decision of their official superiors to the House of Commons. It was an intolerable situation. The whole atmosphere of discussion on that subject was a tainted atmosphere, and it produced, not only on Members of Parliament, but on members of the Civil Service themselves, the utmost disgust. I am quite sure I should he borne out by everyone who can speak for the civil servants in saying that they disliked it as much as any Member of Parliament, that they hated to be put in the position of having to use political pressure in order to obtain increased wages. It was a most unfair position to put them in and to put Parliament in. I have the most distinct recollection that in about the year 1908—everybody in Parliament at that time will bear me out—we were all looking about for some escape. We suggested all sorts of plans, and one of them, the one that always seemed to me, at any rate, most likely to produce a good result, was to get some extra-Parliamentary tribunal, which would command the confidence of everybody, to decide these questions and that Parliament, though, of course, it must remain constitutionally supreme. would in practice no longer be troubled with them.
That is what during the War, owing to the change of feeling which existed in the War, was established. The difficulty was—I speak quite frankly—to know whether the civil servants would accept such a solution, which was very doubtful, but they have accepted it, and they are anxious to retain it—to their great honour, in my view. What madness then to go back on it! I venture very respectfully to assure the House that if we go back to the old system, we shall have taken a retrograde step which everyone will regret, and, for my part, I was simply
amazed to hear that the Government contemplated this step. I would not have believed it possible that anybody, with the recollection of the old state of things, should desire to go back to it. I am not entitled to say more, but I happen to remember the discussion in the Government when this thing was established during the War. I remember my profound. relief that we were really, by the accident, so to speak, of war feeling, going to be able to establish an issue from the intolerable, position which existed in the old days in the discussion of the wages of civil servants. I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone), and my complaint, if I have any. is that it is not nearly wide enough. I would like to give the Arbitration Board discretion to decide on both increases and decreases, and I would like to bring within, its purview all the wages questions, not only of non-manual workers, but of manual workers of the Government. Nothing would be. in my judgment, a greater reform than to take out of the purview of Parliament altogether these questions of what salaries or what wages are to obtain for individual workmen or classes of workmen. It would be an immense benefit to this House, and it would be an immense benefit to the Civil Service, and I cannot tell how much I regret and deplore that the Government, having got this very small beginning of a system which really will free us from the intolerable burden which we used to be under, are really going to destroy this very admirable thing. for no other reason that I can see than that intolerable belief in official infallibility.

Lord EUSTACEPERCY: As one of the very common Members of this House who are now Members of the Civil Service Whitley Council, I should like to say a few words in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). He believes—and I think it is a common belief—that the appointment of three Members of the House of Commons on that Council was to provide a defence for the Government. I express no opinion at the present moment as to whether it is desirable or not that. Members of Parliament should be on that Council, but I think my Noble Friend will agree with me when I say that I am not accustomed to be placed in the position of defending the Government, whether I agree with them or not, and, so far as my presence
on the Whitley Council has anything to do with this Debate, I can assure the Noble Lord that his assumption in that respect is hardly correct.

Lord R. CECIL: That only shows that the Government have failed to do what they set out to do. They foolishly—from their point of view, not from mine—selected the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) to help them.

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps the Noble Lord will better be able to express an opinion on that point after I have spoken. Dealing now with my Noble Friend's arguments, they rather surprise me. In fact, they awaken in me a Surprise equal to that which the speech of the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) awakened in him, because, as we are talking at the moment of personal reminiscences, I remember the time when we were setting up the League of Nations. I remember we were all agreed that it was extremely undesirable to proceed by compulsory, or even semi-compulsory, arbitration, and that free consultation was the best way—the analogy is not complete, I admit—under the conditions to secure agreement and absence of friction. That was also the idea underlying the Whitley Councils. Surely it is obvious—I am not in a position to give chapter and verse, for I am not speaking with any inside knowledge of the work—but I do know something of what has happened—surely it is perfectly obvious that the fact that there is a recourse to compulsory arbitration in every case which falls under a certain category is bound to make discussion in the Whitley Council to a considerable extent unreal. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) probably has had experience in trying to secure agreement between two parties where there was in the background the fear of legal proceedings, and he probably has had experience in endeavouring to secure agreement between two parties where there was not that fear. He will probably admit that in the first ease, where proceedings in the Courts were in the. background, he found it very much more difficult to secure any kind of admission from either party which might subsequently he used against them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think—if I may say so—made a mistake in his speech in speaking of the effect
which the existence of an Arbitration Board produces on the staff side. It produces an equally if not much more serious effect upon the official side. The official side is frequently in the position of not being prepared to make admissions and offers which it would otherwise make, because we all know, however much we may call these things arbitration and invest them with the prestige of a superior tribunal, that, as a matter of fact, every arbitration tribunal proceeds on the method of splitting the difference. That is the fear which must constantly he in the mind of both sides, and in the mind of the official side even more than the staff side. I make no complaint or accusation against the staff side. I do not say they have acted unfairly, but it is a little unfair for the Noble Lord to say when the staff side have acted well that it shows, not. that the Whitley Council has worked well, but that the Arbitration Board has worked well. What I say is, that the official side has not got its hands free, as it ought to have, to make offers. In the course of his argument the Chancellor of the Exchequer animadverted upon the way in which the Labour party, who are not prepared to accept compulsory arbitration, and who do not like it in ordinary industrial matters, are prepared, and wish, to have compulsory arbitration in the case of the civil servants.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Noble Lord draw no distinction between those people who are working for the State and those who are working for private employers?

Lord E. PERCY: I was going to draw the greatest distinction if the. hon. and gallant Gentleman had allowed me to finish my next two or three sentences. On the other hand my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who introduced this Motion, said that the State ought to be a model employer, and that it ought to be in the same position as any other employer. The fact of the matter is that the reason why the Labour party wish compulsory arbitration in this case is because they know that the State must be in a different position from the-ordinary employer, and that the service of the State must be in a different position from ordinary employment.
Therefore, when we talk about the State being a model employer it is true in a sense, but let us not forget that it cannot be a model employer on the same lines as the ordinary employer.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said we must not have any more bureaucracy and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not supremely competent to decide these matters. It is not a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is a question of the House of Commons. The Noble Lord said that this House is the worst possible place to which civil servants can appeal in respect of questions of salary and so on. Of course it is—on questions of salary. But that is not the point. The point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible to this House, and we are responsible for raising the money, and we raise it compulsorily, and the question is whether you can give to a compulsory Arbitration Board the power which, in the last resort, resides solely in this House to grant the taxpayers' money to the employé. It is the supreme difficulty which you cannot get over. The way to prevent Members of the House of Commons being "lobbied" by civil servants on wage questions is not for the House of Commons to give up its responsibility, but for the House of Commons to say: "This is not the proper tribunal; the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the proper tribunal; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not act as we think right, well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to go." We cannot go into details in exercising our power of control over matters of administration. It is not only questions of salary. The argument of the Noble Lord applies to other questions of administration. This House is the very worst possible body to decide any purely administrative question, but we do not say that the power of administration in other matters than the payment of salary should be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given to somebody else. That is really no argument at all.

Lord R. CECIL: My Noble Friend is merely putting purely theoretical questions. We have had experience of the system, and anyone who went through the experience 10, 12, or 15 years ago will agree with me that it was an unsupportable system.

Lord E. PERCY: It. may have been, but there is lobbying in this House on other subjects. We cannot get rid of appeals from citizens of this country to this House by giving our powers over to somebody else. The hon. Member for Camberwell knows there is no party in London municipal politics which has stood out so often and so much as the Labour party against the transference of powers from elected to ad hoc bodies. Here you are transferring powers from elected bodies to ad hoc bodies—transferring that responsibility. Is that a constitutional procedure which yon wish to encourage? After all, what is at the basis of this Amendment? It is distrust of the procedure of the Whitley Councils, distrust of the power of reaching agreement by free discussion. That is the only thing that can lie at the root of this Amendment. After all we are out—I certainly am out—for an attempt to work the National Whitley Council. I am on the official side at the present moment—but I started in this business on the staff side as a civil servant and in one of the divisional associations of the Civil Service, so that I do speak from an impartial point of view. Are we out in the Civil Service to work these Whitley Councils? That is our object. If you say that you are out for Whitleyism and also for an Arbitration Board of some kind then you are not carrying out the experiment that you started to carry out. We want the pure milk of Whitleyism undiluted by the water of fear on both sides to discuss matters.
I oppose this Amendment for a reduction in the interests of the Civil Service. I feel sure that the Union, for instance, which my hon. Friend represents, who feel very strongly on this subject, have not considered the real consequence of this demand which they are pressing. I am quite sure they do not realise that they are going back and not forward in that which we are all trying to make secure—smooth working condition between employers and employed. I would appeal to hon. Members to consider very much more carefully than they appear to have done the real merits of an arbitration board before bringing against the Government this kind of charge that they want an autocratic sweeping away of a valuable safeguard of the worker. It is no such thing. It is not a valuable
safeguard. It is only a safeguard against the staff and the official side being, as they ought to be, brought up against each other in free discussion, and being bound to reach a decision by free discussion, without being able to hand over the question to some ad hoc authority to decide for them. That is the only thing against which it is a safeguard. I am in favour of the Whitley. Council system against anything which might harm it, and I wish to support the Government on this particular point.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is difficult for an ordinary person to make up their mind over this question of Arbitration or Whiticyism. I am told it has never been before tried together—industry and the public service. The Noble Lord who has just spoken is most convincing. He almost persuaded me, though he spoke rather from theory than practice. I remember quite well what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said years ago about the difficulties of the pressure brought by the Civil Service, who told candidates that if they acted in a certain way they would get their vote.

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to remind the hon. Member for Plymouth that never, as I think, in the whole history of Parliament has more pressure been brought to bear on Members than in the matter that we are now discussing.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is quite true, but that was concentrated pressure, and this is continual pressure. I have not, however, really risen to speak on this particular matter, because I have not made up my mind. I am all for arbitration, yet I do feel a good deal what the Noble Lord has said about giving the Whitley Councils a fair chance. I do not know whether we should not do that for a little while and then press, if necessary, for arbitration. Let the Treasury, or the Government, leave it an open question. I myself feel that in the Civil Service you have to be careful, because you have so many people who have been so long in a groove that it is very, very difficult to move them. Nobody has ever stood up for the Civil Service more than I have, but we certainly have some Methaselalls in it, admirable men, no doubt, but out of date. I have risen, however, to ask whether the Treasury or the Chancellor
of the Exchequer might not consider giving a chance to the temporary men and women who were taken into the Service during the War. Certain of these have proved themselves extraordinarily well. I ask that they should be given a chance, particularly the women—the men can generally speak for themselves—that the women should be allowed to stand for further examination so as to get in permanently. In some cases the women have done really brilliant work, and unless they get this chance of further examination they will be turned out of the Civil Service. I would appeal, not so much for the sake of the women, as for the sake of the Civil Service, and for those temporary men and women who proved really valuable servants to the country. I ask that they should be given this chance of passing the higher examination so as to be kept on.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not claim to be a representative of the Civil Service; I only claim to be a representative of the non-civil servant, the ordinary workman. We never asked for an Arbitration Board in the days of the War, and we agreed to the Whitley Councils. Who asked for this Arbitration Board? Why, the Government and their representatives, because they knew the dangers of men stopping work, particularly in great national establishments like the dockyards. The suggestion did not come from our side that we should have arbitration, but it came from the representatives of the Government, and they appointed an Arbitration Board. During the War, when we asked the members of our organisations to act loyally and support the nation in its time of trouble, some of us were led to believe that we were going to have better relations with our employers in the future, but now we are told that the Whitley Councils and all the advantages they were supposed to give are going to be taken away.
Those of us connected with industry would like to know what position we are up against. I have been present at, two Conferences quite, recently, one in connection with the engineering trade, ad the other connected with the transport industry. We have had joint councils, and we have gone along very nicely together. To-day, however, we are having a sledge hammer put upon our heads, and we are told, "You must accept this
or that, and no matter what the Whitley Councils decide, we are going to do what we like." We have to deal with the same people all the time, and this is not human nature but inhuman nature. If we had taken advantage of our opportunities during the War you would not have won the War.

Viscountess ASTOR: Some did.

Mr. JONES: Yes, some did, and sonic did not. The workmen, because they were patriotic, are now going through the mill. What is the good of asking me to be a patriot, when I discover that other people when they get the opportunity are going to do their best to pull me down again? [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I am quite aware that jam is not selling so well as it did during the War, and consequently manufacturers are screaming out in financial newspapers to bring wages down. As a matter of fact, the workers cannot now afford to buy jam, and consequently those who are making it cannot sell it. By the policy you are not pursuing you are destroying your principal asset, and you will find that you are not quite so wise as you think you are. What is there wrong about arbitration? We have always been asked to accept arbitration. Supposing there is a difference between us. In this particular case we have the State on one side as the authority to appeal to. We are told to-day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only man who has a right to decide this question.

Mr. HANNON: This House.

Mr. JONES: Yes, but this House does not decide questions of wages.

Mr. HANNON: It is the final authority.

Mr. JONES: Would you like me to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. HANNON: No.

Mr. JONES: What I say is that the services of a bricklayer are quite as valuable to the State as the services of the hon. Member, and nobody works harder, except the man who grows sugar and knows nothing about it. I suggest that the best way to decide a matter of this kind is a State Department dealing
with bodies of workmen, and if the officials of the State cannot agree with the workmen, the best way is to send the dispute to an impartial tribunal. I would like to see all questions of wages and conditions of employment referred to an independent authority, so that we could not be charged with deciding upon conditions without all the facts being taken into consideration. Now because economic circumstances are against the workmen, we find hon. Members opposite, who were great advocates of arbitration during the War, are now eating their own words.
I suggest that the hon. Member who introduced this Motion is on sound ground when he says it is not a matter for any official of the Government, or for a Whitley Council. A Whitley Council in an outside industry may be able to come to a decision, but what is happening now? I am associated with an organisation which is connected with 360 different Whitley Councils, and what is happening? We are simply having ultimata delivered to us declaring that. we must accept wholesale reductions in wages, which will bring us even below the standard of 1914. Attacks are also being wade on standard hours of labour, which we thought had been established in perpetnity.
Where are we now? We are to have no arbitration, but simply a decision given against us. You see the result of this in the transport and engineering industries, where we are simply told, "Stand and deliver; your money or your life." To us wages mean money, because they mean the standard of living, and we are being asked to go back to a of things in which we were never placed before. Therefore we mean to back tip our friends to the national and municipal services in saying that if the public servant meets his employer on the Whitley Council, and that Council cannot agree, they should have an opportunity of arbitration. Those who represent the Government run no risks, because they are State servants at a guaranteed salary.
If they differ with the workmen's representatives who have something to lose they will be thrown out of have met these civil servants, and I know they have all got good jobs, and they will be employed when our people are out of work. The ordinary employé has to run the risk of being discharged, and therefore there
is a different interest operating between them. The gentlemen who are permanent servants of the State sit upon the Whitey and they have a different point of view to the ordinary workmen. If you come to a deadlock, surely the best way out of the difficulty is a course of arbitration which is independent of both parties. We are standing for the Board of Arbitration, and I hope the House will see that this Board is retained.

Mr. MALONE: I desire to add my voice to the almost unanimous protest which has been made against the removal of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. Very few arguments have been advanced in favour of the removal of that Board. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord E. Percy) put forward an earnest plea in favour of the Whitley Council. I do not think in the past hon. Members opposite have been very zealous about setting up Whitley Councils in connection with the industries of this country. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) seems to me to entirely forget that what we are dealing with is quite a different case to anything we have had before. We are dealing with an employer of the State under circumstances quite different from those which obtain in ordinary industry. The most important point which has been entirely overlooked is that the constitution of the Whitley Council for which the Noble Lord so eloquently pleaded was formed and agreed to by the unanimous and enthusiastic vote of the civil servants assembled in Caxton Hall where they declared in Clause 6 that the Civil Service Arbitration Board was part and parcel of the constitution of the Whitley Council. The present Lord Privy Seal, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was in the Chair at that meeting and he moved that very Amendment. As far as I know I believe the Noble Lord opposite was then on the side of the civil servants who drafted that Resolution.

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. MALONE: The attitude which has now been taken up I am sure will be regarded with profound dissatisfaction by the whole of the Civil Service. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the civil servants may take to strikes and so on. I think there will be a much earlier result than that, and we shall find in the next three or six months some 300,000 civil servants showing us in a
tangible form what they think of the action of the Government in regard to this matter. Three arguments have been brought forward this afternoon. The first is that of expense. The second is that the Arbitration Board is not under the control of the Treasury and the third is that the Board prejudices the Whitley Council.
7.0 P.M.
Let me deal with these points. First of ail as regards the expense. I am told the expense of the Civil Service Arbitration Board amounts to £3,909 per annum, which seems to me a very small amount in comparison with the inestimable value of its work for the whole of the Civil Service, both in increasing contentment and securing efficiency of their work. We are told that with the State as employer the civil servant can always have recourse to the Industrial Courts procedure. There are two stages at which the Government are able to side-track or entirely check the attempt of any section of the Civil Service to go before the Industrial Court. The Treasury may refuse to allow the case to go before the Industrial Courts, and if it does allow a case to go forward the Treasury may still refuse, as they did on two occasions last year, to accept the recommendations of that Court. It has been said again and again that the continuance of the Arbitration Board is prejudicial to the Whitley Council. I have always been in favour of the Whitley Councils wherever it is possible to set them up. This Whitley Council has had added to it three Members from the Coalition side of the House. I cannot see how any civil servant can look upon a body constituted in that way as being a real, just tribunal, by which wage disputes and other matters which they may wish should be referred to it can be treated with any justice at all. This abolition of the Civil Service Arbitration Board seems to me to be another pledge broken by the Government. In the last two or three years we have had pledges broken in one section of industry, and cuts in another section. We have seen the coal miners' wages cut down; we have seen the railwaymen and the engineers, together with other sections of the workers, beaten down in their wages. This is another beginning toward reducing the wages of the Civil Service. It is causing dissatisfaction throughout the
whole of the Civil Service, and when you get dissatisfaction, discontent and unrest you get inefficiency. Hon. Members have spoken to-day about the inefficiency of the Civil Service. However you organise it, it is bound to be a conservative body, but when you get discontent and distrust as well you are bound to get inefficiency-and greater expenditure than at the present.
In my constituency there are hundreds of civil servants. They work in London and come back to live in that dormitory constituency. Let me read one letter, as typical of the sort of feeling which exists among the Civil Service in this matter. One member writes:
In my opinion and in the opinion of a vast majority of my colleagues, an Arbitration Board is absolutely necessary. It does not make for confidence when one party to a dispute can say. 'My way or no way.' Even a criminal is allowed a right of appeal, and that after an unbiased trial. Conciliation is better than compulsion, and is far more efficient in producing content and confidence. It is causing discontent through-cut the whole Civil Service.
That is just one example out of many which I could read to the House. For my own part I should like to see powers of the Arbitration Board extended. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies I should like to know if there is any intention of providing any machinery to deal with those civil servants whose salaries are in excess of £500 a year. That, is a very important point, and in urging the continuation of the Arbitration Board I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some assurance that this matter will be dealt with.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have very special reason for associating myself with this Debate; first of all because I have been sufficiently long in the House to remember what was graphically described by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) as the sort of log-rolling which used to take place on these questions concerning the Civil Service before the War. Those of us who can go back 15 or more years know that we had, especially after the 1906 Election, some experiences in this House which I hope will never be repeated. My second reason for taking part in the Debate is that I happen to be more responsible for the setting up of the Arbitration Board than possibly any
other hon. Member of the House. I was a member of the Government toward the end of 1916, when we were compelled to face the position in which we found ourselves. The civil servants, like other workers, were getting restless and dissatisfied, very largely because of the increased cost of living. Applications were being made—I think quite properly—for improvements in their conditions. The Government had to face the difficulty with all seriousness, and after a good deal of consideration, and on my own suggestion, we decided to try the experiment of setting up this Arbitration Board. There were no Whitley Councils, and there was no machinery of any kind. While it is true that our primary object was to deal with the conditions arising out of the War, I do not know it was ever definitely stated that, on the termination of the War, the Arbitration Board would be abolished.
I have followed as closely as possible the Debate this afternoon. Apart from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, most of the hon. Members who have spoken have not supported the idea of abolition so much as they have supported the idea of strengthening this Board by an improved reference, in order that it might meet some of the strongest objections taken to it by the Government's spokesman. I want to appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us whether, if some improved reference, and if a strengthening of the powers of the Board to meet the difficulties raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be agreed upon the Government would reconsider its decision, and be prepared to give a further trial to this piece of very useful and very important machinery? I make that appeal because I happen to know that the matter has been seriously considered by the Civil Service Association. I have here a resolution passed by the national staff side, at a meeting on 28th March last. It is a long resolution, and I will not read it, except to give the words that I think ought to be very seriously considered by the representative of the Government. It says:
The Court of Appeal shall consist of three persons"—
I leave out the words dealing with how they shall be selected, and so on—
with powers to decide differences arising between the staff and official sides of the
National Council, between the staff and official sides of Departmental Councils, and between associations and the Treasury or Department as the case may be; either side shall have the power of appeal to the Board.
One of his arguments—if I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am within the recollection of the House—was that the Board, as at present constituted and under its existing terms of reference, was too one-sided; that the civil servants could appeal to the Board for something they desired to obtain, but that the Treasury, the official side, had not the same power of appeal to the Board. I suppose, in other words, if the Treasury felt that the time had come for some revision of salaries—say, because the cost of living had dropped right down and got back to normal, and that the advances given in view of the cost of living by the Arbitration Board should again be reconsidered—and if they were unable to obtain the revisions sought at the hands of the Whitley Council, they should then be in a position to ask that the matter should be sent to the Arbitration Board. It seems to me if some such reference as that could be agreed upon it would be possible for the Treasury to go just as freely to the Board as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think it was easy for the staff side to go at present.
I listened very attentively to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, if I may be permitted to say so, there was a fallacy underlying much of the argument he advanced. We must recognise that there is a vast difference between the civil servant and the ordinary employé—the employé of an ordinary industrial or commercial undertaking. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that difference to the extent he should have done. He brought before us the work he himself had done in the setting up of the Industrial Courts, but let us look at the Industrial Courts Act. That Act lays it down that both parties must be agreed to the arbitration. Yes, but if they fail to go to arbitration, the employer, on the one hand, can lock his employés out, or the employés, on the other hand, can say to their employer "Take our notices, we will terminate our engagements, we will leave your concern entirely." They will down tools and leave the place and the employer to look after
themselves. Unfortunately, that occurs much too often. I think I can claim that in nearly the whole of my trade union life, now extending to 39 years, I have endeavoured to use what influence I could to try to show the working men that there was a better way than resorting to the arbitrament of industrial warfare, which often imposes hardship, privation, suffering, and sacrifice upon vast numbers of people who are not immediately concerned and who have no say whatever in the matter.
That is not the position of the civil servant. It ought to be—in fact, I think it is—the business of the Government and of the House to try to keep the civil servant as far away from that danger as is humanly possible. If we continue on the road along which the Government has started to travel in regard to this question of arbitration in the Civil Service shall we not be doing that which is calculated to drive the moderate civil servants right into the hands of the most extreme of those associated with the Service? May we not, unwittingly, be sowing seeds which will result eventually in such an agitation developing that we may have some attempt—I hope it will not come—to organise a stoppage in some branch or other of the Civil Service? After all, if there are grievances, there must be some machinery, whether it be in private employment or in State employment, for doing everything reasonably possible to remove those grievances.
I believe that this Board of Arbitration did give a great measure of satisfaction to the Civil Service. It is quite true, as has already been said in Debate, that when the Board was set up, the Civil Service did not look too favourably upon it. I think I had to run the gauntlet of a good deal of censure for having, as it were, done something to force that piece of machinery upon them. I felt that I could do no other, having regard to the conditions in which the country found itself in the middle of the great world-War. But what must be the feeling now of the civil servants who said, "We cannot get any satisfaction through the machinery of the Whitley Council. There is no Court of Appeal to which we can go?" That is the position if this Board be entirely abolished, and I appeal—it must be to all our interests—to the
Government to see whether they cannot accept this offer that is made in the Resolution I have quoted. Amend the terms of reference; amend, if you will, the powers; but, in the interest of the House, in order to keep us from ever returning to the objectionable experiences we used to have in days gone by, in order to allay the unrest which, I believe, is fairly general in the Civil Service, let us see if we cannot get associated with the Whitley Council some form of a court of appeal in the nature of the Arbitration Board.
One last word. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather 10th to admit that the Arbitration Board was part and parcel of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. Those who have read the Report of the proceedings that took place at Caxton Hall. and which have been so frequently referred to in this Debate, cannot have a shadow of doubt that in 1919 it was the full intention of the Government to allow the Arbitration Board to remain as part of the machinery, and to be the court of appeal in the event of any failure to reach a decision in the Whitley Council. If that were not so, why did not the Government, when it was seeking to induce the Civil Service to form a Whitley Council, give some notice to the Civil Service that it was their intention, immediately the Whitley Council got going, to abolish the Arbitration Board? I am quite prepared to be corrected, but I know of no such hint, and certainly no direct or definite intimation that was made. I know that if I am wrong, the Financial Secretary, in his reply, will give me a quotation from some official statement, in order that, my mind may be clear on that point. I again appeal to him to see whether the Government will not act upon thy offer contained in this Resolution, and see whether a Board with an improved reference cannot he kept in being.

Mr. H. YOUNG: The clear reasoning and the eminent moderation of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) are always welcome to his antagonists, and particularly to his younger antagonists. The answer to the question which he addressed to me at the end of his observations is surely a very easy one. I know of no such utterance, and I know of no such notice having been given. In
the nature of the case, there could have been no such utterance and no such notice given. This was an experimental organisation, which has grown up by methods not cut and dried. We have not constructed on a system of logically looking ahead, and that, indeed, is an answer to a good many of the criticisms which have been advanced against the Government to-day. There was, of necessity, an experimental period, during which it was useful to watch the two apparently conflicting systems of compulsory arbitration and Whitleyism joined together. The conclusion to which the Government has come is based on that best of all bases—experience. Treasury Ministers are very closely connected with the Civil Service and have the best of all opportunities of learning by experience the high traditions and of watching the great labours of that Service, and they must ever feel that their responsibility towards that Service is second only to their higher responsibility towards the country as a whole. It is, therefore, uncongenial for them to be cast, as to-day they have been cast by speakers on the benches opposite, for the part of one taking hostile action towards the Civil Service. On our part, we absolutely reject the invitation to fill that part. This is no hostile action towards the Civil Service that is being taken, and let me say, with what emphasis and with what earnestness I can, trusting that I may carry conviction with sincerity, that if I did not believe that this Measure was actually in the better interests of the Civil Service, I would not support it. I do not expect hon. Members, who have formed such definite views as those expressed today, to agree with me, but I ask them to recognise that those of as who have taken, and who support, this action, do so because we believe it to be in the interests of the Service.
Let me pass on to give one or two reasons, and I think I can best do so by referring to part of the discourse of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). In listening to him, we listened to the unrolling of a theory of a new Constitution for this country. It is a function under our present Constitution for the Treasury, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to co-ordinate and control the Civil Service as a branch of the State. The Noble Lord expressed the utmost indignation at the idea of the Treasury—presuming to exer-
cise those functions. It is a part of our present Constitution that the ultimate authority in all such matters of Government action, of executive action, as we are considering to-day, should be exercised by the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Parliament. As regards the House of Commons, the Noble Lord, if I do not misrepresent him, expressed the utmost contempt of its capacity for exercising those functions. In place of these constitutional powers of a democratic Assembly in the House of Commons and a Government Department under a responsible Minister, responsible to that democratic Assembly, he prefers an independent arbitration tribunal, arbitrary as well as arbitrational, which has no responsibility to the House of Commons, which cannot be made to answer for its decisions. That theory, carried to its logical consequences, is surely more fitted to the days of the eminent founder of the Noble Lord's family in Tudor times than it is to modern times. I much prefer the present system which it is our duty, at any rate as delegates to the House of Commons, to carry out to the best of our ability.
Let me reject another part which it has been attempted to thrust upon Treasury Ministers in the course of this Debate by an ingenious perversion—a perversion as unjustified as it is ingenious—of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His perfectly clear argument, dear in the sense and well understandable in tone, has been perverted as an attempt to assume a bureaucratic authority on the part of the Treasury, and it is said that that bureaucratic authority has been exercised for grinding the face of a downtrodden Civil Service. Here, again, is an uncongenial part—a part never played by us and never to be played. The whole bearing of my right hon. Friend's argument was only this, that Ministers are delegated by the House of Commons, and they must preserve that delegate authority intact, and answer to for it to this House, and it is irreconcilable with that responsibility that there should be outside bodies exercising irresponsible power, qualifying ultimately, if you look to the bottom of the matter, the soverign authority exercised by the King and Parliament.
Another great misconception, I think, has been introduced in the course of this discussion. It. appears to me that the whole weight of the case to-day has been imposed by a slight perversion of the actual attitude taken by the Government, and by a slight obscuring of the actual facts of the case. Let me remind the House that there is no suggestion at all to exclude the whole idea and practice of arbitration from the relations between the Government and its servants in the Civil Service. To judge by some of the arguments addressed to us from the Benches opposite, it is believed that that is the ease. It is not the case. It is proposed that the relations between the Government, and its servants of the Civil Service shall continue in this matter of arbitration upon precisely the same basis as they stand at present between any other employer and his employés.

Mr. HENDERSON: With the difference that there is no power to resist.

Mr. YOUNG: Let me come to the next logical part of the argument. It is put to us that there is a right in the Civil Service to strike.

Mr. HENDERSON: I did not say so.

Mr. YOUNG: I may misrepresent, or put too strongly, the argument at present in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It implies, he says, that there is the power to resist, and there have been references to a strike as a remedy. It is suggested that there might be inclination on the part of servants of the Government to take such violent, and, I should think, ill-judged measures, or that there might be such incapacity on the part of the Government as to enable them to do so. The matter is surely clear, that, as between the State and the Service, there is a difference that imposes a certain disadvantage on the Service. I should say it was this—that it was always the clear and overriding duty on their part not to refuse their labour. In that special relation of the State to its servants there is also this great advantage, that they have an employer who cannot exercise even such remnants of arbitrary power as are left at present to the ordinary employer in industry. It is an employer which is, after all, roughly, more or less—although, no doubt, there is a failure to appreciate
this ideal from time to time—representative of public opinion. What is a strike? A strike ultimately depends on public opinion, and there is no necessity for this weapon if the employé of the State gets the ultimate protection of all labour, which is general public opinion, that. may be brought to bear on the State more than any other employer by recognised constitutional and not necessarily by violent methods.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin and other hon. Members are afraid that if the system of compulsory arbitration is abolished, it may result in a return of these vexed and difficult questions to the Floor of this House, and may result in a renewal of that indirect and direct pressure which we all would infinitely deplore to see revived. I think the hon. Member opposite used the word "revived," but I would like to ask: Has it ever, to any appreciable extent, diminished? Was the result of the institution of the Board of Arbitration to diminish the amount of this political pressure? I very much doubt if it has had that result. I would that any means could be devised to abolish that pressure altogether. I may say in passing that the main agitation in this case has been by no means indirect or underhand or anything but completely aboveboard and perfectly legitimate, and I was aware when the Noble Lord was speaking—not of that agitation, but that he was speaking of the species of illegitimate agitation to which I am referring at the present time. If it is the case that there was, before the War, more of this species of illegitimate agitation than there is at the present time, let us remember this, that we now have the Whitley Council procedure. If I were to attribute the diminution of this illegitimate ventilation of grievances to any one circumstance rather than another, I should attribute it to the possibility of the open ventilation of such matters on the Whitley Council. In a word, it is to these Councils as a means of dealing with these matters, that I am convinced, in common with other hon. Members, we can pin our faith. We believe the true hope of smooth working between the State and its employés for the future lies in this experiment which is now fortunately something more than an experiment in methods of conciliation on these Councils. We believe it is a vital necessity to future
smooth working between the Government and its employés that these Councils should have a prosperous career. And as that has been put so clearly by my right hon. Friend it is totally unnecessary for me to emphasise it.
It is believed that the existence of these more violent, more powerful and less conciliatory methods for the settlement of difficulties has had a tendency to prevent the fostering of the realisation of the best results from conciliatory methods on the Whitley Councils. It is because we believe that, that we have taken this step in order to give conciliation the best chances possible in the world. I have been challenged, in the course of the Debate, with this criticism. It is asked: Why do you take this measure when all is going well? If all is not going well, in what respect is it going ill? That is a perfectly legitimate critical observation to make. After something more than a year of intimate experience, not actual presence at, but intimate experience of the Council table, and after having been in very close touch with the National Whitley Council, if my testimony may be accepted, I should certainly say, as a result of my observations, that the existence of the Civil Service Arbitration Board is very definitely preventing on every occasion the realisation of the best results of the Civil Service Whitley Council conciliation procedure. It has a bad effect, and it is always there. I can cordially echo the observation of the hon. Member who has performed such valuable service upon the Council, that there has been the most entirely liberal and open desire on the part of both sides in the various disputes which I have watched to obtain a satisfactory settlement. But it has been perfectly clear to me that throughout their deliberations, the final effort to come to close quarters with the last drop of oil, which means everything in negotiations of this sort, it is not the practice to use it on the National Whitley Council, because there is always this appeal to the arbitration board. I believe most cordially, as a result of my observations, that if there had been no standing permanent. Board in existence in all the disputes that have come to the Board, a final settlement might have been arrived at by conciliation on the National Council.
I look forward to the future with very little apprehension of there being an
embittered feeling on the National Whitley Council. If there are difficulties in arriving at a settlement, the sphere of voluntary arbitration remains and will be appealed to. It may very well be that circumstances will occur in which it is really difficult for either party to be quite sure that they are in the right in the matter. Circumstances do occur in which there is real doubt whether it is possible to arrive at a decision, or as to what decision would be in the interests of the public and of the classes concerned. When those circumstances arise, the same sphere of voluntary arbitration will exist with regard to the relations of the Government to its employés in the Civil Service as are open to the ordinary employer and employé. It will be open, voluntary and free. But this system of a compulsory Board is, in our considered

judgment, exercising an infinitely adverse effect on the prosperity and on the future of the system of conciliation, and for that reason and in the interests of the Service the Board ought to be abolished. Nothing could be easier than for Ministers—nothing is easier than for a Government to take refuge in such matters as this behind an Arbitration Board, and nothing is more tempting than thus to shuffle responsibility. There is no umbrella so good as an independent and semi-judicial authority for keeping off rain drops. But if it is not your duty to the State or to the class with whom you have to deal, to adopt such a method, then you should not take advantage of it.

Question put, "That '£188,643' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 149 Noes, 90.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[7.43 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Purchase, H. G.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hallwood, Augustine
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Reid, D. D.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Renwick, Sir George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barrand, A. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rodger, A. K.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. c. H. (Devizes)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hudson, R. M.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bird, Sir R. B- (Wolverhampton, W.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Blair, Sir Reginald
Jameson, John Gordon
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Brown, Major D. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Butcher, Sir John George
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Steel, Major S. Strang


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Lloyd, George Butler
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Carr, w. Theodore
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lort-Williams, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Clough, Sir Robert
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sutherland, Sir William


Coats, Sir Stuart
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Tickler, Thomas George


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Matthews, David
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ednam, Viscount
Morrison, Hugh
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Murchison, C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Neal, Arthur
Whitla, Sir William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Nield, Sir Herbert
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Windsor, Viscount


Forestier-Walker, L.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Winterton, Earl


Forrest, Walter
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wise, Frederick


Gardiner, James
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Mccurdy.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pratt, John William



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Han. William
Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hun. G. H. (Norwich)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John


Banton, George
Hallas, Eldred
Royce, William Stapleton


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Seddon, J. A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbais)
Hayward, Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bramsdon, sir Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Spoor, B. G.


Briant, Frank
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sutton, John Edward


Bruton, Sir James
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Jephcott, A. R.
Taylor, J.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Casey, T. w.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Lieut.-Col. Sir D. (Anglesey)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Waterson, A. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loseby, Captain C. E.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkie, Alexander


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Galbraith, Samuel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gillis, William
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Remnant, Sir James
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Walter Smith.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Rendall, Athelstan



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes. 67.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lort-Williams, J.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Fell, Sir Arthur
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Foreman, Sir Henry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Gardiner, James
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbais)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Matthews, David


Barrand, A. R.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, w.)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Birchall, J. Dearman
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, Hugh


Bowies, Colonel H. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Breese, Major Charles E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.
Murchison, C. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hailwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur


Bruton, Sir James
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Sir Herbert


Carr, W. Theodore
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Casey, T. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cautley, Henry strother
Hinds, John
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Parker, James


Clough, Sir Robert
Howard, Major S. G.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hudson, R. M.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Perring, William George


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jameson, John Gordon
Pratt, John William


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jephcott, A. R.
Purchase, H. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Johnstone, Joseph
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Remnant, Sir James


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Renwick, Sir George


Edge, Captain Sir William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Ednam, Viscount
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Evans, Ernest
Lloyd, George Butler
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Rodger, A. K.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Sutherland, Sir William
white, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Taylor, J.
Whitla, Sir William


Seddon, J. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Windsor, Viscount


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Winterton, Earl


Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)
Tickler, Thomas George
Wise, Frederick


Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wallace, J.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Steel, Major S. Strang
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Sturrock, J. Leng
Warren, Sir Alfred H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, w. H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Mc Curdy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Banton, George
Hayward, Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Spoor, B. G.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Irving, Dan
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Finney, Samuel
Malone, c. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Foot, Isaac
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rendall, Athelstan
Mr. Walter Smith and Major Barnes.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: There are a number of items in this Vote which I feel quite sure we did not discuss on the Committee stage, and I think that, before we pass the Vote, the Minister in charge of Public Works and Buildings ought to be in his place—as I am glad now to see he is—in order to answer any inquiries with regard to the items in the Vote. I should like, first of all, to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the trouble he took to carry through a visit this morning to the roof of Westminster Hall. He very courteously extended an invitation to Members of the House to see over the repairs that were being made to the roof, and I am only sorry that so few hon. Members availed themselves of that opportunity. I should like, however, to take this opportunity, as one of those who did take advantage of my hon. and gallant Friend's courtesy, of saying how glad we were of the opportunity of seeing the work, and how much indebted we were
to Sir Frank Baines for the trouble he took in showing us over the roof of the historic building. I understand the work may be concluded by the end of next March, at a cost of £100,000, and that when it is completed we shall have restored to the Houses of Parliament a unique example of a roof which could not be reproduced and which has been altered and repaired in such a fashion that it retains its previous appearance. I thought it was up to those of us who accepted the invitation of my hon. and gallant Friend to make this public acknowledgment of his courtesy.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I also was one of the small party who took advantage of the invitation given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am sure all who were there are highly indebted to him for the opportunity of seeing what is very rarely seen by anyone, let alone Members of Parliament. I only rise to ask one question. We were shown a number of very interesting drawings and photographs, and I understand they are unique—there are no
copies of them—and it was suggested by Sir Frank Baines that perhaps the question of expense prevented their being reproduced. It seems to me it would be highly desirable from many points of view that there should be some record more than there is at present of these interesting pictures and photographs. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any estimate yet as to what it would cost to have these reproduced, so that people all over the world who are interested in these things may have a record of them, and has he taken into consideration whether it would be possible to sell any number so as to pay for the cost of reproduction? I am certain that antiquaries all over the world, particularly those interested in ancient buildings, would be delighted to have a record of what has been done in connection with the roof of this building during the last few years, and I hope something may be done to enable them to know what has been effected, and to give them a guide in other works of the same kind, because I am sure there are many ancient buildings which may be suffering in exactly the same way as Westminster Hall, and if those who are responsible for them have before them the work which has been done at Westminster, it will be a valuable guide for them in doing similar work in other valuable ancient buildings. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that something will be done to give these people in handy form the results of what has been clone in Westminster Hall.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I should also like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend a question with regard to this very interesting entertainment for which he appears to have been responsible. Were any of the faithful friends and supporters of the Government included in the party? This is the first time I have heard of it.

Major WOOD: The invitation was generally given in the House.

Mr. HERBERT: I regret that it did not reach me, and therefore I was under the impression that my hon. and gallant Friend might be obliged to reply to me that it was given to the Opposition mainly because he thought they required education in order that they might support the Government. At any rate, Westminster
Hall on this occasion seems to have reverted, perhaps in a different and more modern way, to its old use of being a place which gave Members an opportunity of refreshing their bodies as well as their minds. I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend for having suggested that he was neglecting the supporters of the Government. I only regret that the invitation did not reach me and I was not able to avail myself of it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to Hyde Park on this Vote. I. should like to say a word about the way they have allowed the beautiful lawn to be maltreated in front Knightsbridge Barracks.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There is no money on this Vote for the Royal Parks.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will try Art and Science—that is the Museums. I have a grievance about the Victoria and Albert Museum at South Kensington. I have had the good fortune to be able to go there a great deal in my life to study, and being a man with weak sight I find it very difficult to see anything at night time in the upper gallery.

Major BARNES: It is not open at night.

Mr. SAMUEL: Thai: s the very time it should be open. Working people and labouring men like myself have no time dining the day to go to these places. We can only go when our work is over at night and study as best we can. South Kensington is not meant for storing things, but for people to improve their knowledge and learn. We like workmen to go and see how beautifully things were made in the past, and they learn to have their taste improved and their craftsmanship rendered more capable. I have been there many a time in the evening, and had to come away for lack of proper light in the upper galleries. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds it is beyond his power to have the lighting looked into, he might make representations to the Minister of Education who, I believe, has control over the South Kensington buildings. I have raised the point once or twice before. I think night-time is the proper time when men should make use of these fine national collections and gems of art. When you come to think that the
reason they were instituted by the late Prince Consort was for the improvement of art, industry and science, it is quite wrong that they should be used by mere tourists during the day.

Mr. MALONE: Some time ago the suggestion was put forward that we should have time recording clocks in the House to indicate the length of Members' speeches. I should like to know what is the state of affairs in regard to that proposition?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (Lord of the Treasury): in the first place, I must express my thanks for the appreciation of hon. Members who visited the roof this morning. I am only sorry that more did not avail themselves of that opportunity. If there was any great desire on the part of other hon. Members to see the roof, I should be very glad to try to make arrangements for them to do so. With regard to the publication of the drawings, the matter will be taken into consideration, and I hope some publication may result. Of course, it would be a costly thing at present. With regard to the lighting of the art and science buildings, we are taking special steps to make it complete, and the point the hon. Member raises will be taken into consideration. In regard to the last. point that was raised, the matter was turned down.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: I asked a question recently in regard to Alexandra Palace. During the War, and till quite recently, it was occupied by the War Office and other Government Departments. No steps were taken during the occupation to keep it in a fit state of repair.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On a point of Order. Is this Palace on this Vote at all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the Minister in charge.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think it comes under any Vote.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: With regard to Royal palaces, I should like to have a few more details as to this expense. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be able during the next hour or two to give us a further explanation as to how the sum is going to be
expended. To come to the last item, as we are rather short of Irish Members to-night, perhaps it would he advisable if I raise the question of works and buildings in Ireland now. I should like to ask if, under this item, any allowance is being made for public buildings which may have suffered damage during the last year or two.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether there are any Irish palaces on this Vote?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Item 14 refers to works and buildings in Ireland.

Mr. MALONE: rose in, his place, and claimed to move "That the Question he now put," but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I am sorry about the interruption from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), because he belongs to a party, or, rather to a section of a party, which takes no interest in what is happening in Ireland. Before the interruption took place, I was on the point of asking whether the money that is to be spent has anything to do with the putting up at the present time of the buildings in connection with the Parliament in Belfast. I should like to know what proportion of this sum of£158,850 has been expended. May I also inquire about Item 13, Rates on Government property? What is the exact proportion of the rates paid on Government property in England, Wales and Scotland? I should like to know that particularly, because it would be interesting in many English Members to know whether Scottish Members or the Scottish people have been able to shift some share of their burden on to Government property. The next item relates to Peterhead Harbour. That is a comparatively small item. I am deeply interested in this question, and I should like to know whether this is current expenditure, or whether it is expenditure on new buildings and fresh developments. If the Government is spending money on this great harbour, why is it necessary Is it because some great storm has washed away part of the harbour, or is it a question of current expense?
Reference has been made to the art and science buildings in Great Britain, and I need not make further allusion to
that subject. The following item on the programme relates to diplomatic and consular buildings. What is meant by including a Supplementary Estimate of £10? Are there any diplomatic and consular buildings in Russia with which we have to deal, and, if so, what is the exact state of repair of those buildings? [Interruption.] Obviously, the Socialist and Labour party wish to draw the curtain over Russia; but if we have any diplomatic and consular buildings there, we ought to know something about them. The next item refers to house building, and amounts to £66,000. We have had no explanation of this, and I am sure f he House would like to know whether these houses are being used for Government offices, or whether they have anything to do with the great house-building programme of the Government. There is another item in which I am more closely interested, and that is the question of surveys in Great Britain. A survey was begun some years ago, and it is still costing a considerable sum of money. How is this survey going on? Is it near completion? The Government have something to do with the sale of maps which are produced as a result of this survey. Are these sales doing well?

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I should like to draw attention to Standing Order 19, which says:
Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members in Debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
Does not the speech to which we have just listened, with such faculties as remain to us, come under Standing Order 19?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point of Order appears to be hypothetical. The Standing Order says:
Mr. Speaker…after having called the attention of the House to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance…
In this case neither the Speaker nor the Deputy-Speaker has called attention to the remarks of the hon. Member.

Captain W. BENN: Is it not competent for you now to call attention to the
obviously tedious and time-wasting character of the remarks of the hon. Member?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not unduly dwelt upon any one subject. He is dealing with the various items in the Vote.

Mr. MALONE: May I submit that on every point he has used the same argument, namely, that no explanation has been given? As a matter of fact, explanations have been given in the Debate before. He is going on with a tedious repetition of his own argument.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is calling attention to various items in the Vote, and asking for information. If I notice any repetition, it will be my duty to animadvert upon it.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: After that interruption by hon. and gallant Gentlemen—to whom I always listen with great pleasure, though I am not certain that I have not found some of them occasionally a trifle wearisome—I will ask for information on only one other question. As far as the survey of Great Britain is concerned, I was asking whether it is now complete and whether the sale of the maps is entirely profitable, and I would like to know the object of extending this survey to the Northern part of Ireland? The next item, War Memorials, concerns a great many of us. Is that an annual or a temporary expenditure simply for this year? It is only £500, but there is no harm in looking into it or in having a mind which likes occasionally to be curious when it is convenient to be curious. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will answer these few questions.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You have spoken!

Fourth to Sixth Resclutions agreed to.

Seventh Resolution read Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. RAWLINSON: in reference to the sum of £148,000, including a supplementary sum of £100,000. for the League of Nations, I would like to know what the contribution by other nations has
been to this fund? I have asked before, and have got no information. If it is not convenient to obtain the information now, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give it to me privately later on?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. RAWLINSON: In reference to the sum of £12,000,000 for the Ministry of Labour, I would like to know how much is in respect of new buildings. I quite see the difficulty of replying now, and if this information is given me in the course of the next week I will be satisfied.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I shall be glad to see the hon. Member on the subject.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You do not know anything about it.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: (speaking from below the Bar): I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must advance beyond the line of the Bar.

Colonel L. WARD: (having advanced beyond the line of the Bar): I. understood that the end of the seat was in the House, as I have spoken there on several occasions already. I should be grateful to have information as to how the grants allocated to voluntary hospitals have been given. It seems to me from information which I have received that certain necessitous hospitals are not receiving the grants which they might reasonably expect.

Mr. THOMAS: Is it in order to ask for information on a Vote which has already been passed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking as to contributions to voluntary hospitals, which come under this Vote.

Colonel WARD: The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake, and he has not given me the apology to which I am entitled. I was asking a question on the Vote before the House. A certain
hospital in which I am interested in Hull has been complaining that it has received no grants from this fund. It is not in a sound financial position, and I would be grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will justify the grants which have been given and will explain why the ease in which I am interested has not been assisted.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I support the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Government could find no better way of expending money than in this direction. The three hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench might perhaps between them be able to give a little help on this point. They arc all Ministers drawing salaries and they are full of efficiency. As to the Ministry of Labour Supplementary Vote, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that we ought to have an explanation. Where is the Minister of Labour? If he were present he might add to our knowledge. Then there is the item relating to the Ministry of Health. I realise that the present Minister has had a very difficult job; but he is efficient and he is getting houses built, and built more cheaply than formerly. I think he might he present to give us one of his interesting speeches full of information about his building programme, and to tell us how he is gradually overcoming the obstruction to building by so-called organised labour. Another item refers to the National Insurance Audit Department. Are we spending over £123,000 on this work? Surely one of the numerous branches of the Exchequer could do the work without our having a separate item of this kind. The next item I do not understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There are one or two hon. Members on the Labour Benches who are not usually shy in opening their mouths. Perhaps their shyness to-day is due to the fact that they have not among them the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Colonel L. WARD: On a point of Order. On behalf of myself and my other equally undistinguished colleagues, I would like to call attention to the fact that there are no fewer than four separate and distinct representatives of Hull, and although we may not all attain the notoriety of our gallant and distinguished colleague above the Gangway—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a point of explanation, not a point of Order.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I have never confused my hon. and gallant Friend with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. I can see no resemblance between them in any respect. As far as Hull is concerned, if there is any need, I will apologise. I always thought that Hull was such an important city that it had five or six Members. I am surprised to hear that it has only four, and I am certain that it deserves more. There is an item relating to the friendly societies deficiency. I would like to know what that is.

HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!

Mr. RAWLINSON: May we have an answer from the Government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made a note of what the hon. and gallant Member has asked, and will communicate the information to him.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to know definitely what is the amount which has been paid up to Ireland during this year, and what it is intended to pay during the course of the current year. Here is a comparatively small item. It may or may not he a good item. The next item is £1,200,000 for criminal injuries in Ireland. During the past month or two we have had a large number of statements from the Secretary of State for the Colonies that large sums of money ate being handed over to Ireland and are to be taken into account on some uncertain date. The time has come when the House of Commons should be informed what the expenditure in Ireland is likely to be. We are voting sums of money to Ireland in an absolutely reckless fashion. I am told that some account is to be taken with the Free State, if and when they have got any money, but this is a position that should be faced by the House and on which the House should get information
on some occasion. We were told last December that if we only came away out of Ireland and deserted the loyalists in the South of Ireland, it would be cheaper in blood and I understood also in money. It certainly has not been cheaper in blood. We have deserted men whom I know well and children too, and in sonic cases their relatives have been murdered. I wish to know definitely whether it has not also cost us vast sums in money. I hope the Government will let us know how much it has cost us this year and how much more expenditure of this kind we are likely to incur before the end of the year. I know it is hard to press the present occupants of the Treasury Bench on this point. I am sure they are anxious to get to their supper and I myself have dined, so I do not want to take them at an unfair advantage, but I shall ask for a very definite undertaking that some opportunity will be given of raising this question when the Secretary of State for the Colonies is present and when we can get an answer from him on this most important matter. I will ask for a definite pledge that. I will be enabled to raise the matter, not at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, but at some time when we can have a definite statement from the Colonial Secretary—either during the Debate on the Appropriation Bill or at some other time—as to the amount of money which is being spent in Ireland at the present time, and whether the Free State is supposed to emerge at any particular moment.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Do I gather that it is in order to raise tie question of the present position of our Government in relation to the Free State Government in Ireland?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Vote is to defray charges on account of ex gratia grants to meet certain losses sustained in the Rebellion of iceii, and I do not think that the general relations between the Imperial Government and the Pro visional Government in Ireland can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: That is what I should have thought myself, but the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) has been permitted to make a speech in which that question was raised.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was only a parenthesis, though perhaps an unduly long one.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University will put down a question on the subject addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I cannot give any such undertaking as that for which he asks.

Mr. RAWLINSON: To put down a question would be quite useless, but I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend to indicate to the Colonial Secretary that I have raised this point, and I withdraw it for the moment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Up to what date does this amount cover? I see it is to be payable up to March, 1923.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: (speaking from below the Bar): I wish to ask—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am bound to remind the hon. and gallant. Member that there is a Rule that any hon. Member who may wish to address the House must come up to the line of the Bar.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: (speaking from within the Bar): I wish to ask a question on lines similar to that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Lyle-Samuel). Statements are being made that the glorious mess which exists at the moment in Ireland is largely due to the fact that the people there expect that the British taxpayer will eventually foot the bill.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to what is happening at the moment in Ireland. Does that not transgress the ruling given by you, Sir, a moment ago?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have proceeded to another Vote. This is a Vote in respect. of compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of employés of the Crown in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I was just about to point out that there is a difference between this Vote and the last Vote. The last Vote was in respect of injuries sustained in the Rebellion of 1916, and dealt definitely with that particular period of time. When we come to this Vote, there is no limit as to time, and I am particularly anxious to know whether that is intentional or not. Does this Vote mean that until such time as the Free State Government is firmly established we are responsible for all the damage that may be done in Ireland in asserting authority? Are we to be considered as being, so to speak, still in authority, and is it to be taken that the Free State Government and its troops are only acting under our authority? In view of statements which are being made in the public Press, I wish to know if the leaving out of any date in this Vote is intentional and if we shall presently have to foot another big bill for the restoration of law and order in Ireland by the Free State authorities, even though we have no control as to the methods by which that authority is being enforced?

Mr. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Does not this Vote refer only to the expenses of Crown employés, and not to the general public?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was about to call the hon. and gallant Member's attention to that point myself. This Vote relates to compensation for in juries and expenses in connection with Crown employés, and not to destruction of property.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I understand that even now there are employés still in the service of the State in Ireland, and I want to know whether damage to them should not be fastened upon the Free State Government, if it occurs as a result of the disturbance which is taking place at the present moment? I suppose the matter has gone too far now, but I think it is necessary that some assurance should be given to the public outside that the British taxpayer is not going to be called upon to pay for the damage which is being done at the moment, seeing that neither this House nor its advisers have any power in that country now.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.0 P.M.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This Vote is for the relief of people who come over here from Ireland. Has this £10,000 yet been spent, and, if so, is any supplementary grant going to be asked for for this purpose? Further, is this money to be paid ultimately by us, or is it one of the items which we are told is to be set off against the Free State Government when a settlement is arrived at some time in the future? I think some sort of information ought to be given to the House on matters of great importance like this. It is very proper that we should spend money on these refugees who have been driven out of Ireland, but we ought to know who is ultimately going to pay it., and how much it is likely to be altogether in the future. The House has been extraordinarily merciful to the Government in passing these Votes this evening, but I think we ought to be given some information on this question.

REPORT [18th JULY].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,499,600. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,023,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,157,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £263,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling
Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,050,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,126,500. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £938.000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

REPORT [29th JUNE].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £198,956, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.

REPORT [26th JUNE].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS 11.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £33,579, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Irish Office, including certain Allowances for Disturbance, etc., and for Sundry Services in Ireland.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. RAWLINSON: I should just like to offer a protest against all these Votes going through in this fashion, and particularly in respect to the Vote with which we are now busy. On this we ought to have been able to have a discussion on the question of Irish finance, and as to the
proper authorities in relation to it, and so on. I protest strongly that the Front Bench are dealing with the matter in this way.

REPORT [15th JUNE].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATE:, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Contribution towards the Cost of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, including a Grant-in-Aid.

REPORT [11th JULY].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS V.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That a suns, not exceeding £4,363,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Grants-in-Aid.

CLASS II.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £307,637, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £22,746, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,779,937, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Sationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Sationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

REPORT [13th JUNE].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £30,571, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the suns necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Cabinet Offices and of the Committee of Imperial Defence, including the cost of preparation of War Histories.

REPORT [22nd MAY].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1922–23.

CLASS IV.

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £575,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

REPORT [4th MAY].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,822,000, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.

SUPPLY [20th JULY].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £155,953. be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Services arising out of the War.

CLASS VII.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £812,422, he granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing. Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1921, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

WAYS AND MEANS [26th JULY].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £333,266,574 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I respectfully inquire whether report of Ways and Means is included in the business of Supply?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The whole business of Supply proper is finished, but, technically, Ways and Means is part of the business of Supply.

Captain BENN: In that case, may I direct your attention to Standing Order No. 15, which says that
no business other than the business of Supply can be taken on Thursday?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have said that Ways and Means is part of the business of Supply.

Captain BENN: Then I will raise my objection subsequently.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Robert Horne and Mr. Hilton Young.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

POST OFFICE (PARCELS) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire to submit a point to you. Standing Order 15, paragraph (5) says:
On a day so allotted, no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before Eleven.
This is a Supply Day so allotted, and under that paragraph I submit that no business other than the business of Supply can be taken. I can find nothing in this Standing Order which, dealing with the last two allotted days, permits the taking of any other business. Further, I would direct your attention to the fact that yesterday when it was desired to take business other than the business of Supply before 11 o'clock, a special Motion was put upon the Paper, moved, and carried. No such Motion has been carried to-day, and in these circumstances I submit that no other business can be taken before 11 o'clock other than the business of Supply?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was better employed during the War than remaining here in this House. Had he done so, he would have known that, in 1916—I think it was—the whole of the outstanding Votes in
Supply were taken before 10 o'clock. It was then held that the allotted day was over when the business of Supply was finished.

Captain BENN: Do I understand your ruling is that if the business of Supply set down for any particular day be concluded before 11 o'clock, other business can be taken; and if that be so, why was it necessary to move a special Resolution yesterday saying that Government business other than business of Supply may he taken before 11 o'clock?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not say that it was necessary. It may have been put down ob majorem cantelam.

Captain BENN: Do we understand that the protection which is provided by Standing Order 15 has disappeared owing to the precedent which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, quoted of what happened in the year 1916? Do I understand that that precedent no longer stands, and that business other than business of Supply may be taken on a Supply Day?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Surely the object of Standing Order 15 is to allow the House to have the whole of the time for discussion of Supply on a Supply day, and in order to guarantee that. Surely if the House find that it can conveniently deal with the whole of Supply before 10 o'clock, I suggest that there is no necessity whatever for the House to waste that portion of its time, and that we should be able to use that time for other business.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have made some inquiries upon this matter, and it is quite clear that there is no rule against other business being taken to-day. I do not rule as to the Resolution put down yesterday.

Captain BENN: Then am I right in assuming that the precedent which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have quoted has overridden that portion of Standing Order 15, and that the practice which has held good on other occasions of allowing 'the House to adjourn when the business of Supply on a Supply day was finished no longer holds good?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can hardly answer that point in regard to precedent without some further research. I think
it is a question which ought to be referred to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Was not the precedent of 1916 adopted in view of the circumstances then prevailing, in order to facilitate business, and is it not a fact that you cannot now override the Standing Order unless it be amended?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The fact of the country, having been at War, did not override the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. THOMAS: You have just intimated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the principle involved in this matter should be determined by Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that if the business with which we are proceeding be done, it will be impossible for Mr. Speaker to give a ruling upon it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not follow the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS: I think you intimated that this point should be referred to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My point was that the precedent which occurred during the War was consistent with the Standing Order.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I think we ought to have some explanation as to why the Special Order was placed on the Paper yesterday, and not to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the point is why was it necessary yesterday to have a Motion providing for other business being taken before 11 o'clock on a Supply day, why is that Motion not necessary to-day; and why, in the absence of that Motion, is it competent for the House to-day to proceed with other business? The answer to that question is, had other business been taken yesterday without that Motion, yesterday would not have counted as an allotted day of Supply, and then, instead of this being the twenty-first allotted day of Supply, it would have been the twentieth. When we come to the last day of Supply, and the House has finished the business of Supply, then Standing Order 15 ceases to operate. That is the reason why the Motion is not made on
the last day of Supply, and why it is competent, when the House has completed the business of Supply, to proceed with other business.

Captain BENN: Then do we understand that to-day is not an allotted day?

Mr. SPEAKER: The business of the allotted day having been completed, the operation of Standing Order 15 has no effect.

Captain BENN: We have just been dealing with the precedent of 1916. Am I to understand now that that is not the point at all? The Standing Order says that on a day so allotted no business other than business of Supply shall be taken before 11 o'clock. Frequently it has happened on Supply days that the Votes have been passed before 11 o'clock, and the House has been accustomed to rise when business of Supply has been finished. To-day is described on the Order Paper as the 21st allotted day. My submission is that, being an allotted day, it is covered by paragraph (5) of Standing Order 15, which says that on a day allotted to Supply no business other than business of Supply shall be taken before 11 o'clock. For these reasons I submit that it is out of Order to take the Post Office (Parcels) Bill or any other Bill to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first part of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said is perfectly correct. If, on an ordinary allotted day, business other than business of Supply were taken before 11 o'clock, it would cease to count as an allotted day. That is the reason why the Government always places a Motion on the Paper. Otherwise they would not be able to count that as an allotted day. When, however, you come to the last Supply day, the position is very different. When the business of Supply has been finished, the Rule cannot apply to the business that is done afterwards. The business of Supply having been completed, Standing Order 15 is done with as far as this Session is concerned.

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (CONSENTS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered, read the Third time, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MacVEAGH: The Government set up a Select Committee to advise them in respect to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Speeches have been made against that Bill annually for over a quarter of a century, and hon. Members have pointed out the archaic nature of this method of legislation. At length, after many years' protest, the Government agreed to set up a Select Committee to consider it. That Committee condemned this method of legislation, and I should like to know whether the Government has adopted its report, and what steps they propose to take?

Mr. MALONE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I make that motion in view of the fact that there is no Member of the Government present.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to second the Motion.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Minister in charge of the Bill is on his way here, and is expected every second. He did not anticipate that this Bill would come on quite so quickly. In reply to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh), the Select Committee to which he has alluded was set up, and has reported. Its Report is now in the Vote Office and available to all hon. Members, The Bill which has been introduced, and to which we are asking the House to give a Second Reading now, is entirely in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. The reason why it is very important we should get the Second Reading of the Bill to-night is that most of the important points of discussion upon it will come up on the Committee stage. Therefore I trust the House will let us have the Second Reading to-night, so that we can deal with the Committee stage to-morrow.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I certainly think, if my hon. Friends persist in their Motion, I shall vote in favour of it. I
have been sitting here for an hour, and we have passed some of the most important Reports of Supply and other matters, in which explanations were required and requested by different hon. Members. Not a word has been uttered from the Government Bench in the way of a reply to any of the inquiries made. That is not treating the House with the respect one would have expected, especially as a great many of the questions have not been put in a hostile spirit. Most of them have been directed by those friendly to the Administration, and really such conduct on the part of the Government is reducing the proceedings of the House to an utter absurdity. In the case of the Reports of Supply it may be excused, but now the Government are bringing on Bills. I have known the party to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury belongs occupy the whole night in discussing different items of this annual Bill. It is a good job the present Opposition are not nearly so cute as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's party would be if they were again on this side of the House. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must confess that, so far as the business of this House is concerned, he has got a soft match—

Colonel WILSON: Oh, no!

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: —especially with the Opposition. It is a moral certainty that if the Opposition were determined to oppose, they could make it very difficult for the Government to-night because of what seems to be their utter want of respect for the House of Commons in their management of this business.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is in his place. Will he not accept the Motion for the Adjournment, having regard to the fact that the Minister in charge of the Bill is not here?

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Let us have a Division.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I am quite prepared to deal with the questions which have been raised by hon. Members. If I shall not have exhausted my right to speak by intervening now, I should be delighted to answer any questions that may be put. I cannot tell what may be the points of
strong interest to hon. Members unless they put them before me.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I do not see why the Under -Secretary should suggest to the House that we should put questions to him on the Second Reading of this Bill. Why does he not stand up at the Treasury Box and explain this Measure? Why does he not go over the Schedule of the Acts proposed to be continued, and of those it is proposed to discontinue, and the different sections of the Act? [Interruption.] Some hon. Members have not read the Bill, and consequently want enlightening. I suggest that instead of telling the Opposition that they should ask questions, the Minister in charge ought to explain the Bill; then we should get to know what we were about, and we could either divide on the question that the Bill be read a Second time or allow it to go through.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The question I put was this. The Select Committee appointed by the Government has recommended that this method of legislation shall be revolutionised and that the passage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which has occurred in a particular way for more than a century, should be scrapped. That proposal comes, not from a Radical, hut a Coalition Government. When they propose a departure of that kind, we might, at least, have an explanation of the principles which guided the Select Committee in advising the Government and the Government in adopting this line of action. It is not the way to deal with this matter for the Under-Secretary to ask that questions should be put to him. He is bringing forward this revolutionary proposal; let him explain it.

Mr. SPEAKER: An explanation cannot be given on the Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned." It must wait until that Motion is either negatived or withdrawn.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir J. BAIRD: As hon. Members know, a Committee was set up for the purpose of examining the whole question of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It has
not been the practice in the past for any Minister from this bench to detain the House by a Second Reading speech, and obviously hon. Members who are anxious to get through the business as rapidly as possible have asked questions, which have been answered. There has been a slight alteration in consequence of the Report of this Committee, and if hon. Members will turn to page 4 of the Report they will see this in paragraph 6. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of Members who have not the Report in their hands if I read a portion of this paragraph—
Your Committee have inquired carefully into the constitutional aspect of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and, in particular, as to how far this system of renewing temporary laws can he considered as an effective protection of the rights of Members of Parliament to review the various Acts contained in the Bill. They understand that the limit of a private Member's rights consists in proposing to leave out any Act from the Schedule of laws to be continued or to add any expiring law not included in that Schedule.
That is the gist of the whole matter. It proceeds:
It is not in order to propose to amend any Act, or to make it permanent; and owing to the fact that the Bill is invariably introduced at a very late period of the Session there has been and can be, in practice, very little discussion. Your Committee are therefore of opinion that the system of extending the duration of temporary laws by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act so far from being a safeguard of the rights of Members is, in fact, to sonic extent liable to become a menace to those rights, inasmuch as temporary and experimental legislation is by this means continued from year to year without either suitable amendment or adequate discussion.
The result of that was that it was recommended that certain Measures should be kept in the Schedule, and those Measures have, in fact, been kept in the Schedule. I think everything that can be said has been said.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I do not think that, so far as some of the Acts which it is proposed to continue are concerned, and with regard to some of the Acts which this Committee has proposed that the Government should drop, no great objection will be taken, but there are a few of the Acts which are recommended to be continued permanently to which exception could be taken by some Members of the House. There are one or two Acts which it is proposed to continue perma-
nently in which I am interested. There are the Housing and Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, and there is an Act in which, if this Bill had been taken in a proper period of the Session, my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) would have been very interested. I refer to the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913, which it is proposed to repeal. I want to express what I am sure is the feeling of several Members, that we do not endorse entirely the recommendations of the Select Committee as to the Bills which it is proposed to continue as permanent, and as to some of the Bills proposed to he dropped, and if a more fitting time had been found for the discussion of this Bill we should have discussed the subject. I hope if the 4 o'Clock Rule be suspended to-morrow we shall be given an opportunity to put down the necessary Amendments. I am sure we could keep the House going into the early hours of Saturday morning.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am very much obliged to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the very lucid statement he gave of a Bill which he did not understand. It certainly left nothing to be desired. I have no complaint to make with the Report of the Select Committee to which he referred. Indeed, there are passages in this Report which seem to have been lifted bodily from speeches I have delivered from time to time in this House. Therefore, I have no complaint to make about it. But there are some points I would like him to explain. I notice there is an old friend of mine, the Sand Grouse Protection Act, in the First Schedule. As I have said again and again, before the Act was passed, all the sand grouse were shot. Not a sand grouse has been seen here since. Yet year after year we have gone on solemnly passing this Sand Grouse Protection Act, and it is now proposed to put it permanently on the Statute Book. I would ask my hon. Friend, who goes grouse shooting from time to time, to tell the House frankly, did he ever see a sand grouse?

Mr. SPEAKER: Details cannot be entered into on the Second Reading. They should be examined in Committee.

Mr. MacVEAGH: But on the Second Reading I believe it is allowable to refer,
by way of illustration, to the inclusion of the Sand Grouse Act to show the absurdity of the legislation, and it is only to that extent that I am referring to the Act. I want to show the inefficient manner in which the Home Office has dealt with this Bill by leaving in it the Sand Grouse Protection Act when there are no sand grouse to be protected. Why have they left out the Act for the Protection of Grey Seals? I am told it is because there are no grey seals to protect. Then why have they not left out the Act for the Protection of Sand Grouse, seeing there are no sand grouse to protect? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, by the indulgence of the House, will get up and explain these matters. Then there is the Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, which deals, I believe, with sums under £5. Surely we do not want Parliamentary permission to issue cheques under £5. I believe this matter was brought before the Committee and it was decided that it was outside the scope of the Committee and should properly be dealt with by the Law Officers of the Crown. Yet this Irish Promissory Notes Act is included in the schedule of enactments to be made permanent, although at this moment there is no power to pass Acts applying to Ireland. Then there are the Motor Car Acts, 1903, about which the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) is very much distressed. I believe my Noble Friend has had to appear at the police court on several occasions for furious driving. Can we be told what is the effect of putting the Motor Car Acts into this Bill? I can only suggest that, notwithstanding the setting up of the Select Committee and its elaborate Report, we have still a most extraordinary hatch patch of Bills dealt with here, and it will be necessary to set up another Select Committee to revise the findings of the last Select Committee and to try to give effect to its recommendations—recommendations which are all right in themselves, it being the manner in which they are carried out that is wrong. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his explanation, which did not carry me any further, and which did not throw any more light on the subject than I already had. But still he was very prompt in replying.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I appreciate the speech which has just been delivered and I agree in the hon. and learned Member's apprehensions with regard to this Bill. I have not had an opportunity, as he seems to have done, of reading the Report of the Select Committee, and it was only to-day that I noticed, when looking through the First Schedule of this Bill, that the Motor Car Act, so far as it is unrepealed, is included in the list of expiring laws which are to be made permanent. It is said that the Ministry of Transport exists for no other purpose than to pass some sort of Act relating to the use of motor vehicles on the roads, and whenever the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is asked what excuse there is for the continuance of the Ministry he always refers to the report of some Select Committee which he hopes some day to embody in an Act. We never see the Act, however. All we know now is that it is proposed to include in this Bill the Motor Car Act so far as it is unrepealed. There are many Members of this House who would like to see the Motor Car Act repealed. There are some Members who have gone so far as to advocate the abolition of the speed limit. Is there any one Member on the benches opposite, or even on the Front Bench below me, who does not use a motor vehicle? I think even my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has been out in a char-a-bane before now. The speed limit for those vehicles is 12 miles an hour, and I wonder how often he has seen that exceeded. There are many Members of this House who have only realised to-day for the first time that by this Bill it is proposed to make the Motor Car Act permanent. There are hon. Members who do not at all agree with the present Act. I am not the only one who disagrees with it, and therefore. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill will realise that to-morrow certain Members of this House will require detailed explanations of why it is suddenly proposed, at a moment when the representative of the Ministry of Transport has announced he is going to bring a new Act to repeal the existing Act, to make permanent that Act. I suppose it is only what has happened to a good many other Acts perpetrated by the Coalition, which have eventually had to be repealed. The next thing will be
that we shall have an Act repealing the Motor Car Act and then another Act on top of that. I hope the hon. Baronet will give consideration to withdrawing the Motor Car Act completely from this First Schedule. I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) in his pursuit of the sand grouse, but I dare say he is equally well justified in that. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will seriously hesitate before they vote for a Bill which proposes to make another Measure permanent on the Statute Book, when it has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that that Measure is completely out of date, and has made no advance to keep pace with the experience of modern times. The Parliamentary Secretary has already announced that the lighting laws, as affecting motor vehicles, are completely out of date, and everyone knows that to be the case. I hope that hon. Members will help me in asking why this Motor Car Act is proposed now to be made permanent.

Mr. SEXTON: I can understand the Noble Lord's objections from the legal point of view to the Motor Car Act, but I really cannot understand why he wants to repeal that Act, because he has already himself repealed it more than once, and, therefore, from his own point of view, he has got what he wants.

Mr. MacVEAGH: But he has got to pay for it. He has been fined 13 times.

Mr. SEXTON: My objection to this particular Bill is that it prevents the House from amending these Acts periodically. Let us take the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847. Those who are absolutely ignorant of the details of that Act would like to know something about it. Then we have the Sunday Observance Prosecution Act, 1871. Everyone knows that, so far as Sunday observance goes, it is never observed, so that it is surely coming down to the very depths of absurdity to make that Act permanent. There are other Acts of Parliament included in this Bill which, personally, I should like to see repealed altogether. There is the National Insurance Act, 1911. We are told that Section 78 is to be repealed. But we are not all conversant with that, and would like to know really what the repealing
of Section 78 means. In the circumstances we shall not have any opportunity of knowing how far these Bills are dealt with. I am certainly opposed to the introduction of a Bill of this kind at such a late hour, and with such a short time available for discussion.

Mr. WATERSON: I have no desire to follow the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), or at any rate compete with him, in regard to knowledge of motor cars and the particular pace at which they should travel, but he referred to the Motor Car Act, and said that probably the Government would introduce another Motor Car Act, and another Act upon the top of that, so that it was most difficult to keep pace with the situation. The matter to which I desire to refer in connection with this Bill is not on those lines. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of removing an anomaly which at the moment exists owing to the failure of the Government to put into operation certain legislation. The Bread Acts of 1836 have never been altered since that time. The Government have done nothing to bring these Acts up to date. I had some experience during the War of a certain Order issued by a Government Department—namely, the Sale of Food Order. which, if my memory serves me, is Part II, and which will expire on the 31st August. That will mean that the consuming public and the traders in certain cases will be placed in a great dilemma, if that Order is allowed to expire wilthout something being done to give the necessary protection to the consumer. My complaint is that the Government, in bringing in this Bill, have not dealt with this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member referring to an Act, or to an Order made under the Defence of the Realm Act?

Mr. WATERSON: I am referring to the Ministry of Food (Continuation) Act, 1920, which is included in Part 4 of the Third Schedule to this Bill; and I should like, if I may, to draw the attention of the Government to Part II of the Sale of Food Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: If that be one of the Acts in the Schedule to this Bill which is being only partially continued, the hon. Member's proper course will be to move in Committee that the whole Act, or such
other part of it as may be desired, shall be included in the Schedule.

10.0 P. M.

Mr. WATERSON: I, naturally, respect your ruling, and, if I may say so, I some what expected it, but I wanted to make that observation in order to give the Government the opportunity, between now and the Committee stage, to see that that Order is incorporated in the Bill. I take this opportunity, on the Second Reading, to ventilate the views that I hold on this question with regard to the serious position which will be created if this Order expires at the end of next month, and I trust that the Government will not lose sight of that important fact. They with- drew the Bill which they brought before the House dealing with the sale of bread, on the ground that the Session was nearly over. They are omitting to do anything in that regard, and they have neglected to make the necessary arrangements for the continuance of this Sale of Food Order. I felt that this was an opportune moment to raise this question, and to let the Government know that there is a keen feeling in the House that something should be done in that direction.

Mr. HAILWOOD: May I point out that there is a keen feeling in the House that the present Expiring Laws Bill goes quite far enough in respect of this kind of legislation? The hon. Member has referred to the continuance of an Order that came into force during the War. Lord Rhondda brought in a particular Food Order for the express purpose of rationing the bread of the people, and for no other purpose whatever. The baking trade loyally carried out that Regulation, difficult though it was, and they have been subjected to a great many prosecutions, because it was an impossible Order to carry out. On its merits, the thing is bad, but in any case there is no reason why legislation should be continued by Orders in Council, and why the War should go on for ever. There is no reason why the baking trade should be particularly singled out to have this legislation imposed upon it.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is really not the time or place to discuss that matter. The remedy of an hon. Member wishing to raise the question would be to move in Committee, in Part IV of the Schedule, to insert, in the third column, the words
"Part I and." He would then be able to raise the question, and make his speech against the Order. It has always been the custom to take these detailed points of administration during the Committee stage.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Am I not in order in pointing out the objections that would arise if the Government listened to the advice of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson), and included this particular Order? I am answering his speech.

Mr. SPEAKER: I stopped the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) from going into the argument, while allowing him to draw attention to it. The hon. Member is also quite entitled to say if such a proposal be made, he will give warning to the Government that he will oppose it.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg to give notice that I will also oppose any extension of the Bill in the manner the hon. Member has pointed out.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir J. Baird.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ACT, 1919.

Resolved,
That the Ministry of Health (Rats and Mice Destruction, Transfer of Powers) Draft Order, 1922 (presented 19th June, 1922), be approved."—[Sir A. Mond.]

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Beaumaris, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Broadstairs Gas Company, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act,
1920, on the application of the Elstree and Boreham Wood Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 18th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 25th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Oct, 1920, on the application of the Hornsey Gas Company, which was presented on the 20th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the St. Anne's-
on-the-Sea Urban District Council, which was presented on the 20th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act. 1920, on the application of the St. Austell Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 24th July and published, be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Ten o'Clock.